Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 25	September 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Jalal

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

While performing clean up, I'm not sure there's a Wikipedia article here. There's WP:RS of the subject's claims, but not about the subject to establish notability. In fact, the RS reporting places doubt on the credibility of the subject's claims, and the RS coverage is only because a parliamentarian provided a platform. In addition, the coverage was not sustained beyond his initial 2016 claims. Basically, the RS does not establish GNG, from my read. Longhornsg (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 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!} 22:31, 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) 22:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. Although there are articles covering him, they primarily focus on a single event. This doesn't sufficiently establish notability in my eyes. - The9Man ^(Talk) 15:07, 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 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! [2] [3] 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 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 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. 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 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. ✗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 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). [4]. 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 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 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 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 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. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniël van Goens

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

This subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Nothing in the article is a discernible claim to notability. JFHJr (㊟) 00:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear. There are some newspaper articles, but he lived before social media and TV. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 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!} 22:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The newspapers linked in the comment above the relist are simply name drops. I can't find anything else for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Best I can find are various musical works (sheet music) in the BNF Gallica and a few mentions in Gscholar, mostly confirmation of his works. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Dutch wikipedia article lists a number of sources such as JH Letzer: Musical Netherlands 1850-1910 . Bio-bibliographic dictionary of Dutch musical artists - as well as writers in the music-literary field, 2. edition with additions and improvements. Utrecht: JL Beijers, 1913, page 239 Illustrated music lexicon, edited by Mr. G. Keller and Philip Kruseman, collaboration with Sem Dresden , Wouter Hutschenruijter (1859-1943) , Willem Landré , Alexander Voormolen and Henri Zagwijn ; published in 1932/1949 by J. Philips Kruseman, The Hague; page 178 Jozef Robijns , Miep Zijlstra : General music encyclopedia , Haarlem: De Haan, 1979-1984, ISBN 978-90-228-4930-9 , volume 4, page 29 Necrology Caecilia 1904 by Simon van Milligen. Several of those books have dutch wikipedia articles about the books themselves. Also coverage here and here. Together there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the coverage provided by Atlantic306, I think we can say this passes WP:GNG. I really suspect there is a lot more, but I have trouble assessing it with my limited language skills. There is certainly a lot of his work available, especially since he died 114 years ago. Jacona (talk) 01:02, 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CEVA Logistics

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:NORG. The article is a catalogue of mergers and acquisitions without any claims that the business has done anything notable. A BEFORE search comes up with nothing but listings entries and their own social media. Cabayi (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and France. Cabayi (talk) 08:23, 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!} 06:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The freight forwarding market is significant and has been the subject of multiple analyst reports, some of which provide detailed analysis of participants including the topic company. Unfortunately most are paywalled, but that doesn't exclude the existence of sourcing that likely meets the criteria for establishing notability. For example, here is a link to a report by Allied Market Research and another by Global Data and another by Technavio. Mordor Intelligence also provides analysis on various regions - for example it includes the topic company in a report on the Contract Logistics Market in the Netherlands (and other regions too). HighKing⁺⁺ 20:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HighKing - Indefensible (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 18:03, 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) 22:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, while I commend HighKing's research, the sources found are market surveys which are indiscriminate listings of the companies in the market rather than significant coverage of CEVA. Cabayi (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, its a pity I can't return the compliment because by labelling the reports as indiscriminate listings, you're just demonstrating that you didn't bother to even look at the reports. These reports contain detailed information and analysis about CEVA. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since HighKing calls upon me to prove I've looked at their sources, here goes:
    1. alliedmarketresearch.com : "Some leading companies profiled in the freight forwarding market report comprises Bollore Logistics, CEVA Logistics, DB Schenker, DHL Global Forwarding, Dimerco, DSV Panalpina A/S, Expeditors International, Fedex, Hellman Worldwide Logistics, Kuehne+Nagel International AG, MGF (Manitoulin Global Forwarding), Nippon Express Co., Ltd., Transporteca, UPS Supply Chain Solutions, and UBER Freight LLC.". $3,456 for more detail.
    2. globaldata.com : "CEVA Logistics SA (CEVA), a subsidiary of CMA CGM SA, is a provider of contract logistics and freight management services." There's nothing in the paragraph available to show notability. $295 for more detail.
    3. technavio.com : paywall semi-broken by web archive, " The market report also offers information on several market vendors, including AP Moller Maersk AS, Agility Public Warehousing Co K.S.C.P, Aramex International LLC, C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc., CEVA Logistics AG, CJ Logistics Corp, Deutsche Bahn AG, Deutsche Post DHL Group, DSV Panalpina AS, FedEx Corp., Gati Ltd, GEODIS, Kerry Logistics Network Ltd., Kuehne Nagel International AG, Nippon Express Holdings Inc, Omni Logistics LLC, Singapore Post Ltd, SINO Group, United Parcel Service Inc., and XPO Logistics Inc. among others." $2,500 for more detail.
    4. mordorintelligence.com : The link provided is a list of 20 reports three of which feature CEVA's logo, priced at $4750 per report.

I won't claim that I've laid out the $20,501 necessary to read the complete text of these reports. I don't think any of our readers will either. With these pricetags, it's the pricetag and the alleged insider knowledge that are the points of those articles. If the other sources established CEVA's notability then I'd have no objection to these sources further down the article. However, to require $20k to just establish the company is notable is the antithesis of notability. If notability is only established by insider knowledge, the entity is not notable in any rational interpretation of notability. It's a variant of Jasper Carrott's old joke, "I'm world famous in Birmingham."

If the "detailed information and analysis about CEVA" shows CEVA's notability, please provide the proof. Cabayi (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, put it in the article. Cabayi (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? Even by your own arguements, these reports go far beyond "indiscriminate listings".

For example, the alliedmarketresearch link says that it *profiles* those companies and if you click on the Table of Contents you can see section 10.7 is dedicated to Ceva under a number of headings.
You misunderstand the purpose of sources and the manner of meeting the criteria for establishing notability. It isn't the case that the report *content* needs to show notability, it is merely the fact that a publisher has created in-depth "Independent Content". The globaldata report is entirely dedicated to Ceva and is a detailed profile. This is not "trivial coverage" and that fact alone means this source meets the criteria.
The technavio report is similar to other research reports and the Table of Contents link shows section 10.5 dedicated to Ceva under a number of headings.
For mordorintelligence, you realise you can click on the link to get more details of each report. For example this report profiles Ceva at section 6.2.4.

The points you raise only really serve to demonstrate a lack of understanding of our criteria for establishing notability. It is enough that sources exist which contain in-depth "Independent Content" and Research reports (especially when they profile the company in questions) have long been accepted as meeting the criteria and aren't regarded as "inside information". They're no guideline to say that sources must be freely available, only that they are published. The requirement for "multiple sources" has easily been met, there are (even by your own admission) 6 independent analyst reports listed above and I've no doubt more exist too. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? Even by your own arguments, you have not read these reports. WP:PAYWALL allows the citation of sources behind paywall. Your assertion is that the material hidden behind the paywall must be presumed to show the business is notable. It's an equally valid assumption that the material behind the paywall is a copy of the Wikipedia article for which someone has the chutzpah to charge their users extortionate fees.
If you have read the reports, please cite them in the article, along with some of their great insights, and we can all happily !vote keep. Cabayi (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it (although you've yet to acknowledge your error) that you've retracted the "indiscriminate listings" objection now that you've actually read the guideline? Your new argument has now changed to not accepting the bona fides of the listed analyst firms. I don't have access to these specific reports right now but I've read analyst reports from technavio and Mordor in the past and it is for this reason that it is frankly ridiculous to say that it is a "valid assumption" that the reports are mere copies of this Wikipedia article. Perhaps you've not bothered to check out the available Table of Contents for some of these reports from which you can see the headings under which the analysis/profile of the company is provided? Perhaps you've also not read WP:PAYWALL - the first sentence reads Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. and I can find no evidence you've even bothered to make a request at RX. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources currently in the article are not independent from the subject - 1 is co-authored by an employee of CEVA Logistics, and 2-5 are press releases released by CEVA Logistics or their business partners. It is not possible to determine what depth of coverage the four market research reports provided by HighKing give to the subject. Given their unknown reliability, unknown independence, and very low diffusion (these are meant to be sold to a handful of companies), I choose to err on the side of what is available to us, and find myself agreeing more with Cabayi's case. There's simply not enough reliable material to justify a standalone article when all the content we should be using sits behind an inaccessible paywall. Pilaz (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a new one for me at least. Technavio is one of the biggest analyst firms in the world. Mordor is one of the biggest research aggregators. Have you located something which says they are of questionable reliability or independence? Also, see WP:PAYWALL. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added more references. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 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 merge‎ to Meat on the bone. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boneless meat

AfDs for this article:

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

As can be seen from the sparce content, this article does ot contribute anything new; some of the information is opinion or even so obvious that it does not require inclusion ("not require eating around or carving around the bone"). Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a merge with Meat on the bone may be appropriate to show the comparison of the cuts and other considerations. Reywas92^Talk 14:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, opinion backed up by low-quality sources, provides very little information. Don't see any justification for it having its own article. GraziePrego (talk) 04:19, 3 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!} 23:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with meat on the bone. The article doesn't have enough significance on its own to warrant an article. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 00:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still a DICDEF, same as it was almost a year ago. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with meat on the bone. It's only a small amount of information, but it could be useful for comparison within the 'meat on the bone' article. -- Primium (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Britannica has an entry on deboning at https://www.britannica.com/topic/deboning (although its more of a disambiguation page). If one looks in google books and searches for "deboning" there are large number of sources discussing this as a concept directly and in detail. I think it would be possible to cover the topic of "boneless meat" through an article on deboning because that concept would easily pass WP:SIGCOV. However, it's not something I am interested in tackling. Ideally this article should be moved to deboning and updated to reflect that change.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 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 no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

District Planning Committee

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

Non-notable, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH. Article is based on primary self-published sources by the government with run-of-the-mill routine material; lacks secondary (WP:PST) or independent sources (WP:ORGIND). Governments have many local bodies under it, but Wikipedia is not a database for every such orgs. The Doom Patrol (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two reasons. First, it seems to me that a function described in the constitution of a nation state is very likely to be notable as it is likely to be closely examined by independent journalistic sources. Second, a brief survey of GScholar shows that there are many journal papers and books discussing the way this works in India. To the extent that it would be too much effort to discuss them all here. Conclusion: it's a function of the state, we have access to the output journalists and academics who keep track of such things, hence it is notable because it is noted. JMWt (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWtDo you have any policies that support your position or can you provide the sources? Nagol0929 (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: There seems to be content forking. I can see one more article District planning in India. District planning is done by DPC.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A merge might be appropriate, but it seems to me that the content in the two articles doesn’t overlap that much. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Topic is clearly notable. Furthermore, I second JMWt’s arguments.

Previously, the nom had attempted to PROD this article, an action inconsistent with policy that PROD "is meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected".

I objected at the time for these reasons, and left a message explaining why at nom’s talk. While the message was probably a bit too brief to be clear, well, see the history for their user talk. Nor did nom ping me when they AfDed.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:13, 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 no consensus‎. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ung-u

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

I'm gonna take the step forward and try to tackle with this. I don't think there is any significant coverage about this person besides With the Century, the autobiography of Kim Il Sung, which I would consider not RS. One passing coverage from RS I found is here. TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my point, notability is not inherited. Being the grandfather of Kim Il Sung does not make one inherently notable. TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Depends what kind of sources you want I guess, North Korea's various gov't websites have coverages about this person using the typical flowery language... Some coverage in US sources, when the Navy found an old flag with a connection to this person [5], [6] Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviewed journals mention him in context [7], [8]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, @Oaktree b. The flowery language of NK government is what I'm most concerned at. I will look into the US sources and the peer reviewed journals. TheLonelyPather (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access the North Korean sites on work's VPN, and even on my personal internet, it's a bit of a crap shoot to get them to load. KCNA is usually the best one. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The basic information in Kim can be rolled into the article on the Kim family or perhaps his son. The information on the General Sherman incident can go into the General Sherman incident article.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Korea. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 21:59, 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} 08:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 8 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulsamed Akin

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

Completely fails WP:SPORTCRIT, no coverage in WP:RS whatsoever. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Germany, and Turkey. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find match reports about games he played in, nothing in-depth about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A stub a decade ago and still a stub. Aintabli (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be exact, a single-sentence stub, and nothing changed after a decade. Aintabli (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article lacks any depth and fails to comply with WP:SPORTBASIC (prong 4) as it does not include any SIGCOV (just databases). Also, my searches turned up nothing that would constitute SIGCOV that might satisfy WP:GNG. Not finding a suitable redirect target, so deletion unfortunately appears to be the right result. Cbl62 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A check for this player that is football base is next to nil. HawkAussie (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Fails to meet criteria of WP:GNG. Not enough sources to confirm intrinsic value of an article.

Villon411 (talk) 11:59, 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 delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jafarabad High School

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

High school, fails GNG and NORG, unreferenced, BEFORE showed nothing. // Timothy :: talk 20:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only potentially notable coverage could be in this book (preview not working), but that alone wouldn't be enough to pass GNG. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 20:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Lightburst (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the only sources I could find were mostly on Facebook (in which FB is considered unreliable), and I'm assuming this is a non-notable high school which is improperly sourced. Signed, 64andtim (any problems?) 14:55, 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sapporo Omoide in My Head Jōtai

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

Ffails GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums. BEFORE showed nothing, link in article is to database. // Timothy :: talk 20:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This album charted at #20 nationally and was on the charts for 6 weeks, per Oricon, therefore making it likely to meet WP:NALBUM. I have not tried to find separate coverage online (and for this period in Japan most relevant sources are on paper), but at worst this should be redirected to the artist, Number Girl. Dekimasuよ! 01:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:56, 3 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!} 21:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM per evidence provided above by Dekimasu.4meter4 (talk) 21:40, 22 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 speedy delete‎. CSD G5 (sockpuppet of User:HassanHussainOfficial) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shehr Main Dihat

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

No WP:DEPTH of coverage in any of the sources that might meet WP:RS; some of the sources don't even mention this channel. The "detailsbiography" source clearly does not meet RS criteria. Prod was disputed by page creator.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 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. While some people certainly did not agree with this, there is a general consensus that this subject does not have the requisite source coverage for NLIST. There were some alternative proposals made for better-focused lists, and of course that can also change in the future, so that is certainly not to say Wikipedia shouldn't cover this topic at all; just not quite in this way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of electroacoustic composers of color

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

De-PROD'd. Original (endorsed) rationale: I see no indication that this specific yet subjective and undefined cross-categorization meets WP:NLIST. "Of color" is a very American-centric phrase that essentially categorizes people as "white" or "not", smushing everyone in the "not" category into one homogenous mass with no respect to actual cultural differences that may be relevant. Japan, for example, might have a particular style of electroacoustic composition where it would be relevant to discuss Japanese composers (and their non-Japanese adherents) together, but there's no indication that every "non-white" electroacoustic composer should be grouped together in this way. (And that's not getting into how we may or may not be defining "of color").

DePROD'd by creator with the following rationale: Removed deletion proposal because this is a useful resource for teaching. My students (who are not in the US) use this page, as do other lecturers.

As much as I respect that, whether or not something could be useful to a small subset of people is not a basis for keeping a list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. List of acousmatic-music composers doesn't have all of the entries on this list so a merge may be of benefit. —siro χ o 19:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I didn't realize that existed. I'm happy for a merge/redirect instead of deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Music. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This list exists for the same reason lists of women composers exist. It's to simplify research for people who are trying to find representation. The history of this genre has been heavily whitewashed to the point that it's usually credited to being invented in France by Schaeffer. In fact, the origin was in Cairo from El-Dabh. He was not an obscure composer. He moved to the US and moved in all the important musical circles of the post-war era, but his contribution has largely been neglected. I'm using him as an example, but this is a systemic problem, similar to the one that has also historically impacted women. I understand that this is a 'smushing', but systemic erasure is also a smushing.
Drcchutch (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understanding "of color" as an exclusively North-American phrase is a very limiting way of framing the rationality of this list. It also conveys non-Western artistic practice, and art manifestations from the Global South, which, in the context of the history of electroacoustic music, includes a highly-relevant number of practitioners, past and present. Since this kind of list page is very useful for discoverability by the general public as well as by students in the field, deleting it would be a mistake, and the rationale presented for deletion would not speak very highly of the principles of the Wikipedia community. Kamen~enwiki (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The assumption that all "people of color" are non-Western and/or from the Global South is, itself, a limiting point of view. The color of one's skin does not determine their artistic practice. Do you have any reliable sources which treat all "people of color" as coming from a single or related electroacoustic tradition? Presenting sources would be the most useful argument towards keeping this list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said "all 'people of color'" above. I clearly stated "It also conveys". Kamen~enwiki (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But my point is that that's what this type of list conveys, unintentionally or otherwise - that somehow all "people of color" are the same. It's one thing to create a list of "List of composers from X" or "List of composers in X style", but "people of color" is a subjective term that homogenizes all these people. Again, if there were sources that discussed "people of color" as a specific group within electroacoustic music, that would be a much stronger argument for keeping this list - do you have any? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you want this broken down by country of origin or what are you looking for?

And what time frame are you looking for it in? It's my first week of term and I did not have refactoring this list in my schedule.

Drcchutch (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reinstate my vote to keep, on the grounds I stated above. Further arguments for this have been made by others below. Kamen~enwiki (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been thinking about it and there's no obvious way to refactor this list and retain it's current utility. This list exists because of historical and ongoing racism in music education and textbooks.
Racism lumps diverse populations together and sees them as interchangeable. Dozens of different countries and cultures become "Asian." Educators and researchers trying to mitigate the effects of this use the same terminology, because anti-racism is a reaction to racism.
Breaking this list up into "Asian", "Black", etc, however, becomes more specific to a particular western country, rather than less. The categories used in the UK differ very significantly from the ones used in the US and neither is exhaustive.
This list is of most use to academics, musicologists and students, who are a small subset of people, it's true, but they're also the experts in the topic.
Again, wikipedia does have artificial, homogenous groupings like "women" in other places for very similar motivations, utility and audience.
Drcchutch (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following the discussion here, I'm going to recommend a keep based on WP:NLIST clause, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability, as a list that is both informational and developmental. I would entertain other options that serve the purposes this one does including renaming the list. I currently view merge as a subpar but viable alternative.
I will also note that an editor removed several redlinks from the list recently, and I'm not equipped to know if they should be restored per the intended informational and developmental purposes of this list. —siro χ o 08:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those names were there for developmental purposes. Drcchutch (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From a UK perspective the 'of colour' term does seem extremely broad in a way that centres whiteness, while excluding many people who experience racism such as Roma and Jewish people.
More specific information is already there in existing finer-grained categories, e.g. someone might be in both a 'Indonesian composer' category and an 'Electroacoustic composer' category. Does wikipedia have functionality for selecting/grouping by category and presenting that as a meta-list? That would allow suppressed histories to be brought to light without the USA-centric 'smushing'. Nonetheless I'm going to vote keep because fundamentally I think this should not be framed as a deletion discussion and would be better as a more expansive discussion on the category's talk page.
Yaxu (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no ability to create a list on the fly based on categories. You could run a query using an offwiki tool to pull entries in Category X that are also in Category Y, but that's offwiki. I'm not sure what a discussion on the category talk page would have to do with keeping this list article or not, as regardless of the outcome of any categorization discussion, this list would still exist. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, first and foremost as a WP:CROSSCAT, but especially due to the generally racist overtones of lumping anyone not "white" into the group of "of color", whatever that even means. Racial identity is extremely thorny, and what constitutes "of color" is almost always going to be WP:OR.
Even though WP:PANDORA is about redirects, I'm going to invoke it in spirit here as a good reason why this list shouldn't exist. Every single list of people could be split off into an "of color" version.
I also find the pleas to NLIST's clause of valid "informational" or "developmental" list completely ludicrous grasping at straws. Any list could be "informational", and any list with red links could be "developmental". You forgot the qualifier of recognized, which this isn't. In any case, this is just a glorified WP:ITSUSEFUL and doesn't justify keeping this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For what it's worth, "lumping anyone not 'white' into the group of 'of color' is racist" is itself a well-known racist concern troll that attempts to support white supremacy by forcing every other ethnicity to act independently against it instead of working together to dismantle it. It's roughly the equivalent of union-busting tactics that convince workers they're better off negotiating on their own. Assuming you're operating in good faith, you should probably rethink why you think that argument is valid - and regardless, I don't think it's a valid argument for deletion here. The entire point of the article is to attempt to de-whitewash the genre. Etherjammer (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am operating in good faith, and I don't appreciate the insinuation that I or anyone else in this discussion is "supporting white supremacy" or engaging in "union-busting tactics". I would appreciate if you would strike this bad-faith assumption. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto what PMC said, but also, your statement that "The entire point of the article is to attempt to de-whitewash the genre" (along with other similar ones made by others above) is wholly inadequate, per WP:RGW. If you have sources on which to base a list, then by all means, let's see them, and we can reconsider. But until then, WP:RGW and WP:NOR forbid this list. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following Siroxo's reasoning. It seems that people's knees started jerking when they read "of color". Any entries in this list should also be included in List of acousmatic-music composers. Apocheir (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Apocheir "It seems that people's knees started jerking when they read "of color"" I would love it if you could explain what you mean by this insinuation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST as the sourcing does not satisfy the guidelines at WP:CSC which states that a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I would ask that those arguing for or against this list for any reasons other than policy language should take a step back and calm down. Topics involving racial identity or social justice often draw controversy, and in the end the best thing to do is not argue for or against a topic for ideological reasons because that is WP:POVPUSHING. Our goal as an encyclopedia is to include the sum total of all human knowledge; even the knowledge that we may personally find distasteful for whatever reason. There is absolutely nothing wrong with including lists of this type if reliable sources exist which use similar language. For example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of black Academy Award winners and nominees ended in a keep result because of the sources available on that topic. However, this list is entirely unreferenced and I am unable to locate any sources discussing "electroacoustic composers of color" as a group or set. As such the list is entirely WP:Original synthesis and is not suitable for Wikipedia because of our policy of no original research. While I appreciate and agree with the decolonial ethics of Drcchutch and Etherjammer this is a case where academics need to first do the work of discussing this topic as a group/set in published literature before we can create such a list on Wikipedia. @Drcchutch and Etherjammer, wikipedia is not the place to pioneer new decolonial scholarship, but we can include existing sources and topics of this kind and update the encyclopedia as new sources are published which decenter whiteness from the academic canon. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do lists normally have citations?

The most pertinent article is Patel's 'Exploring Cultural Diversity in Experimental Sound' https://doi.org/10.25370/array.v20213269 (See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf1WNUQQ-DA&list=PLnr5LpGO6hU0siuZfAwYKe13PMzGhQdZN&index=8 )

George Lewis, one of the artists on the list, writes that there is a specific style of white music production, which implies that being unbound by those constraints would have stylistic implications: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1513376

Lewis also writes about "race-aware genre scholarship" in the Journal of the American Musicological Society, in an essay that posits this applies to every genre. https://www-jstor-org.chain.kent.ac.uk/stable/26908092

I'm sure there are other examples, but again, I wasn't expecting a list to have this sort of citation Drcchutch (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drcchutch Yes lists are expected to have citations per policy at WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists. For examples of high quality lists you can browse Wikipedia:Featured lists. However, lack of citations alone is not a valid reason for deletion if we can locate sources in a WP:BEFORE type search per WP:NEXIST. The issue here is that our notability language for list topics requires the identification of multiple independent sources which address the group topic of the list directly and in detail per WP:CSC and more generally WP:GNG. If you were to locate a couple of sources which discuss "electroacoustic composers of color" as a group directly and in detail (such as journal articles or books from a reliable academic publisher or even a article in a The New York Times or other similar publication) than we should be able to keep the list. It looks like the first source you provided above is one potential source, although it doesn't use the exact language of the list title which could be a problem for some editors in this discussion. (not for me though) The other sources look to be related but too tangential to the topic to be used to prove notability. Ideally we would have an academic publication that already has a list of "electroacoustic composers of color" which it discusses as a group. Usually "multiple sources" is interpreted as three sources with in-depth coverage of the topic at AFD. Please ask me if you need further clarification or have any more questions. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Lists are normally expected to meet NLIST, yes, and content does require citations if challenged. In this case we are looking for sources that discuss the concept of "electroacoustic composers of color" as a set. An article which says "there is a specific style of white music production" doesn't discuss "electroacoustic composers of color" as a set, it discusses the idea of a culturally "white" style of music production (which could probably be a really interesting article in itself if there are other sources about it). An article about "race-aware genre scholarship" is the same. What you'd want is an article whose topic is something like "The most groundbreaking electroacoustic composers of color" or "Production style of electroacoustic composers of color". Not every source needs to mention every entry on the list (or even most of them), but there needs to be enough sourcing that the grouping is not arbitrary or original research. The issue with it now is that it is completely subjective - there is no standard definition of "people of color", and without outside sources grouping these people together, the list as it stands is entirely populated by making subjective judgements about peoples' skin color - which is original research. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good points PMC. @Drcchutch If this discussion closes as delete, you might consider trying again by attempting to better delineate a topic that more accurately reflects the exact language of the references being used. It's important that the language of the title of the article comes directly from the sources supporting the article. For example, if you located multiple articles on "Black composers of electro-acoustic music" you could create a List of black composers of electro-acoustic music. I'm sure there are many potential related articles that could be created from the available academic literature. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If views (before the discussion) are anything to go by, this isn’t a particularly useful navigation tool, and it otherwise doesn’t hold up to NLISTS. Mach61 (talk) 02:00, 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 speedy delete per A11 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emirate Of IbraheemLand

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Zero reliable, in-depth sources on this topic. FatCat96 (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East and Yemen. FatCat96 (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is wild, there's so much stuff in here and zero corroboration for any of it. Top search results are this and other wiki pages. Moonreach (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 as rather clearly made up by the editor who created the article. So tagged. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have blocked the article creator as a rather-obvious single-purpose account whose only substantive edits have been to create a walled garden related to this non-notable micronation. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Crazy dedication to a fake article. Jebiguess (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this article was deleting without a consesus PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:44, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Shelby

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and author-specific notability policies. Possible redir to Covert-One series. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Confusingly organized list of work, needs cleanup, article needs expansion. But, seems to meet WP:CREATIVE both through authorship of notable books from the 1990s that are missing articles including This Far from Paradise and Days of Drums, and Last Rights (book), not to mention the book with Robert Ludlum; as well as more recently as a screenwriter of Mechanic: Resurrection and Survivor (film). Might also meet WP:BASIC we have an in-depth profile, [9], plus many book reviews, many of which have smaller amounts of SIGCOV about the subject. —siro χ o 19:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are lots of book reviews coming up in the Ebsco search, sufficient to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is poorly formatted and in need of serious cleanup but the article meets GNG guidelines and should not be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:08, 30 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 Trash Talk (band). Star Mississippi 02:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shame (Trash Talk album)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and album-specific notability policies. Could be redir to Trash Talk (band). - UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trash Talk (band). —siro χ o 19:31, 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SGUL Teddy Bear Hospital

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and organization-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Medicine, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With a quick check in ProQuest, I see some coverage of similarly named programs in Ireland[10] and Canada[11][12], Australia[13], Singapore [14], etc.

I wonder if this is a more general concept? If a concept, will surely meet WP:GNG but of course would need to be at Teddy bear hospital or Teddy Bear Hospital —siro χ o 19:41, 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) 22:57, 3 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!} 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 17 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rabinarayan Acharya

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

Subject fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. h-index in Google Scholar is 19 and the search for references only finds articles such as this which falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Odisha. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing anything that speaks to notability under either PROF or AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:58, 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 keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Season of the Sakura

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and game-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Video games, Computing, and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's likely that the vast majority of any coverage is in paper sources, given the game's age. But, the article creator never included any and the WP:BURDEN is on the maker of an article to prove notability. In English, there is very little to be found, with Mobygames only listing a single contemporaneous review. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was able to find is a >200 word review in dead tree magazine, Animeco #9 Winter 1998, page 31-32. Magazine has an editor-in-chief/masthead. —siro χ o 19:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BugBug, a Japanese adult gaming magazine, appears to have a spread's worth of coverage (a lot of it NSFW images) in its June 1996 issue, pages 56-57. Dunno about its reliability, but from Google searches it's claimed to be one of Japan's longest-running gaming magazines.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the two sources Laukku found above, I found additional coverage in the Spanish print magazine Loading Extra #3, pg. 24-27. Honestgamers published a review of the game (note: outlet seems to be marked as "situational" at WP:VG/S, not sure how this would affect a game review where subjectivity is expected). This game was bundled as part of the JAST USA Memorial Collection, where slightly more coverage of it can be found. Season of the Sakura also appears to have been one of the subjects in The Impact of Telepresence on Cultural Transmission through Bishoujo Games., a 2005 paper published on behalf of Temple University. It seems to me that there are sources out there, they just need to be integrated into the article. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the above theree's an article on Vice here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG —siro χ o 09:14, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuriko Saito

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and professor bio specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, Philosophy, Japan, United States of America, and Rhode Island. UtherSRG (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets NPROF with >1000 citations on a solo-authored book chapter [15], ~~1000 on a coauthored paper [16],~~ and many hundreds more on other works [17][18][19][20] [21]~~[22]~~. (addendum Thanks to David Eppstein below for noting the messy profile. I've updated my comment as such, but my !vote remains the same. —siro χ o 19:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her Google Scholar profile [23] is a mess of unrelated works, but I agree that the ones by her on aesthetics are heavily cited (especially for philosophy), enough for WP:PROF#C1. Additionally, I found enough book reviews (and added them to the article) to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just considering the works on aesthetics the subject appears sufficiently cited to meet WP:PROF (1174,257,227,220,119). Additionally David Eppstein has shown the subject meets WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A GS list that is, as David says, "a mess of unrelated works" is almost always a strong indicator that GS has again screwed-up. If you look closer, you will find that most of the highly-cited contributions in this GS listing (with the exception of the Everyday Aesthetics chapter) were not authored by the subject, but rather by other, similarly-named individuals at other institutions. Aside from the EA chapter, she seems to several other papers with >100 cites, but it tails-off quickly from there. To me, this is borderline, so I'll refrain from !vote. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's merely an indicator that the subject has not curated their GS profile. GS always screws up, but with a fair amount of effort you can clean up your profile. Not everyone does this (nor should they be expected to) but when they don't it makes the profile not much better than searching the author's name yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NPROF, as this is an impressively accomplished and published philosopher author. Impressive sourcing, encapsulated on her Rhode Island School of Design profile, is more of the overall. You can find more on various searches. — Maile (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per comments that have already been made. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:11, 30 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kravtsov family (Don Cossacks)

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

Fails WP:GNG; "Notability" tag was ignored. - Altenmann >talk 17:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 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 redirect‎ to Lead-cooled fast reactor#United Kingdom. Given HighKing's thorough assessment of sources, I don't feel like I can close this discussion as Keep but there are a number of editors who value the content so I'm choosing the option of a Redirect as an ATD which preserves the content in case future sources can establish organizational notability. Since discussion in this AFD continued up until just a few hours ago, ordinarily I'd relist this discussion but after 3 relistings, that's not an acceptable option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newcleo

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

No WP:INDEPENDENT coverage of Newcleo, only routine financial information, as well as quoted claims from their CEOs with WP:PREDICTION claims. In future company may be notable, but right now it's just well written WP:CRUFT ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The relevant notability guideline is WP:NCORP, and Newcleo meets the criteria of "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. The article itself cites several news media sources with significant coverage of Newcleo published in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Here is a small selection of these independent reliable secondary sources (with quotes to illustrate depth of coverage):
- The Times (UK), British mini nuclear reactor firm plans €1bn fundraise": "Stefano Buono, chief executive, said Newcleo, which raised €300 million last year, did not need the money just yet... Newcleo's reactors will output about 200MW — many times smaller than regular nuclear power stations such as Sizewell. The reactors at the new Hinkley Point C can output 1.6GW. But Newcleo's reactors would be much cheaper to make, at about €1 billion each, and manufactured in a factory to enable rapid deployment."
- The Times (UK), "Stefano Buono's Newcleo wins backing for AMR nuclear reactor": "He has invested $10 million in Newcleo and retains a 10 per cent stake after the founding capital raise, which has attracted external investors including Exor, the holding company controlled by the Agnelli family, and Ian Lundin, chairman of Lundin Energy... While Hinkley’s reactor will be cooled by pressurised water, Newcleo will use lead."
- Il Foglio (Italy), "Il ceo di Newcleo ci spiega perché il nucleare del futuro è made in Italy": "c’era anche Newcleo, la pepita made in Italy del settore nucleare, che ha annunciato un investimento da 3 miliardi di euro nel periodo 2023-2030 per lo sviluppo del primo reattore modulare di quarta generazione da 30MWe e di un impianto per la produzione di combustibili nucleari innovativi. Con sede a Londra, la start-up è stata fondata nel 2021 dal fisico Stefano Buono, dall’ingegnere nucleare Luciano Cinotti, e da Élisabeth Rizzotti, fisica con un passato nella finanza. A Lione, nel giugno 2022, Newcleo ha aperto la sua filiale francese, dove impiega già 70 ingegneri e altro personale qualificato."
- Bloomberg (United States), "Nuclear Power Startup Newcleo Raises $315 Million for UK, France Expansion: "Newcleo uses what’s known as a lead-cooled fast reactor, a next-generation technology that operates at atmospheric pressure, making it safer than commonly used high-pressure water reactors... In the UK and France, Newcleo is seeking government approval of building sites and operating permts."

OP's statement is not true even if we consider only English-language sources. However, notability is not only dependent on English-language sources and this company has received significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, in multiple countries (at least 3 countries shown above). VantBellypo (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Newcleo has been subject to reliable sources (The Times, Bloomberg, Il Foglio) that show significant coverage (and not just passing mentions), as already described by User:VantBellypo. The Times even discusses the price/performance ratio of Newcleo's reactor and compares it with that of a competitor (i.e., Hinkley's). The above-mentioned sources are generally accepted sources on Wikipedia, they don't contain fan-based content and I thus doubt that the article is WP:CRUFT. The sources put a certain emphasis on, for example, the money that Newcleo has raised, which is not a prediction but a simple fact. This is also portrayed in FAZ, also a source generally accepted on Wikipedia. In addition to that, FAZ highlights Newcleo's technology, i.e., the use of nuclear waste as reactor fuel.^[1] --81.110.177.209 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I appreciate the effort you've taken to provide quotes VantBellypo, it's not really clear from the quotes you provided that those sources meet there requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH, which excludes routine coverage such as funding announcements. Additionally, it is not completely clear that those sources meet WP:ORGIND, Il Foglio, for example , appears to be an interview. I'll try and do a search myself of course, but NCORP is supposed to be fairly strict. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lead-cooled fast reactor#United Kingdom where it is currently mentioned. At this point, I haven't found any coverage that addresses the company directly to the level of detail required by WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the coverage falls under examples of routine coverage, though there are enough mentions in coverage of broader topics that this would be a redirect with possibilities of spinning back out in the future, or perhaps at least covering in a bit more detail in an article about the history of development, or other such broader article. Of course, the existence of any future coverage would be speculation on my part. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I spent the weekend looking up good supporting material and I suppose there's sufficient coverage in secondary reliable sources to warrant an independent Newcleo article on Wikipedia. Please do me a favour and give some time to improve the article using this source material:

Le Monde: The article describes that Newcleo is becoming Europe's best-funded startup, which is somewhat remarkable, and it also describes that a protoype is already being built. In addition to that, it puts significant emphasis on the backgrounds and it describes Newcleo in reasonably good detail. I reckon that this Le Monde article alone is already indicative of why Wikipedia could have an article on Newcleo despite them not having produced any functional products yet.^[2]

Börsen-Zeitung: A German-language source that is similar in content to the Le Monde source. It also describes the funding as unusually fast and remarkable, and it also describes Newcleo's technology. In addition to Le Monde, Börsen-Zeitung mentions that Newcleo plans to build an MOX fuel facility. Due to the nature of that source (Börsen-Zeitung translates into English as "stock exchange newspaper"), Börsen-Zeitung also explains where Newcleo has obtained its capital from.^[3]

Ship Technology: The source announces that Newcleo has signed an agreement with Fincantieri and RINA to fund a feasibility study for nuclear use in the shipping industry.^[4]

There's also been recent coverage in The Telegraph^[5] and fDi Intelligence,^[6] but those are at least to a certain degree interview-based articles, and I'm not sure whether they can be used to demonstrate Newcleo's notability. They should work as sources though as they're both reliable and secondary.

--81.110.177.209 (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of recently found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Le Monde seems like a good source, the German one I'm unsure of. I find this discussion [24] in the Telegraph helps put the company in context. I think we're ok for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Funding announcements are not SIGCOV? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Plickert, Philip (2022-06-23). "Start-up Newcleo sammelt 300 Millionen für neue Atom-Entwicklungen". FAZ.NET (in German). Retrieved 2023-10-02.
^ Escande, Philippe (2023-03-21). "Nucléaire : « Newcleo est en passe de devenir la start-up la mieux dotée d'Europe »". Le Monde.fr (in French). Retrieved 2023-10-09.
^ Rothbart, Karolin (2023-03-21): Atomenergie-Start-up hofft auf Milliardenfinanzierung – Newcleo wirbt mit sauberer und günstiger Kernkraft, Börsen-Zeitung, No. 56, p. 11
^ Vitale, Cat (2023-07-26). "Newcleo signs major agreement for nuclear naval propulsion study". Ship Technology. Retrieved 2023-10-09.
^ Mustoe, Howard (2023-09-17). "France is more supportive of us than Britain, says UK nuclear startup". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2023-10-09.
^ "Newcleo's atomic push: safer, cleaner, cheaper". fDiIntelligence.com. 2023-09-25. Retrieved 2023-10-09.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist but right now, this is looking like a Keep or No consensus closure. I don't see support for Deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject has plenty of coverage to meet requirements: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2862814766/DA60BD8716CA4128PQ/4, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2841415603/DA60BD8716CA4128PQ/8, etc. - Indefensible (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above as per WP:ATD although Deletion is also a valid option. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Let's look at the sources and invite the editors above who feel these sources meet the criteria to comment:

VantBellypo has looked at four sources through the lens of NCORP and says they meet the criteria. Unfortunately I cannot fathom how VantBellypo can say they meet NCOEP since none of those articles contain "Independent Content" - that is "original and independent opinion", etc, and they all clearly fail WP:ORGIND.

The first Times article is PR, relying entirely on quotes from the CEO and information provided by the company. There is no "Independent Content" and we can see the text is peppered throughout with quotes, fails ORGIND.
The next Times article is older, from 2021, and is also PR and talks about the company's future plans and a profile on the CEO. It contains no "Independent Content" and relies entirely on information provided by the CEO and the company. It also has no in-depth information on the company, fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. The anon source says this article is also good because it even discusses the price/performance ratio of Newcleo's reactor and compares it with that of a competitor - no it doesn't, it repeats information from the CEO about his aims.
The Il Foglio article is also PR - the headline even starts with "The CEO of Newcleo explains..." and it is a verbatim interview. It contains no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. The anon IP also likes this article saying it is "significant coverage" but doesn't appear to be aware of the "Independent Content" requirement. The Anon IP also makes an argument about those being "acceptable sources" - which they are for supporting information within the article, but they aren't for meeting the criteria for establishing notability, those are two different standards.
The Bloomberg article dated June 20 2022 is based entirely from this company announcement of the same date. Much of what Bloomberg publishes is related to announcements and PR. Lots of publications do this - here's another from moneycontrol.com. Here's another again from tech.eu. All dated June 20. None of these contain "Independent Content" and they all fail ORGIND.

The Anon IP also provided 6 other sources.

Faz.net is dated 3 days after the PR flurry for the funding announcement but it doesn't add anything new to what we learned from the announcement, also relies on quotations from the CEO, has no discernible "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
Le Monde article is based on yet another company announcement and is what is known as a "puff profile", essentially regurgitating positive information about the company and their execs. Even the headline puts the claim in "quotes". It is (not coincidentally) dated one day after this announcement by the company which has all the same info. Same sort of article as this from Bloomberg or this from News in France. Fails ORGIND, just more regurgitated PR and a puff profile.
The Ship Technology article is dated the very next day after the same company PR with no "Independent Content". Fails ORGIND
The Telegraph article is an interview with the CEO with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
The fdi intelligence article is another puff profile based entirely on information provided by the company/execs with no sign of any "Independent Content" whatsoever, fails ORGIND.

Indefensible provides links to two articles available in ProQuest.

The first from MarineLog beings by examining the question on whether a "nuclear option" would solve emissions issues for ships and the first number of paragraphs are devoted to a different set of companies and their investigations. The last half or so of the article mentions the feasibility study involving the topic company's technology (as mentioned in the Ship Technology article above) and then provides a (very) simple overview of the company and how the topic company's reactors work all of which is available on the website and in most announcements. Fails ORGIND.
The final source is from Contify Energy News and it says very clearly that it is an "Original Press Release". I've no idea why someone thinks Press Release meet NCORP criteria - they don't. Fails ORGIND.

From what I can see, this company has a very active PR department - which based on the amount of money it raises, it really should. Some editors appear to consider any old "significant coverage" is sufficient to meet NCORP criteria. That isn't the case. The *content* must be examined and must contain "Independent Content" as per the guidelines. None of these do. This company hasn't build anything yet and is drumming up business - WP:TOOSOON applies and while I wouldn't have suggested a redirect myself, the suggestion is good seeing as the company is mentioned already. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources online to support NCORP for this subject. The MarineLog ref should count. Here are some more https://www.proquest.com/docview/2788723615/12150691EEE1421FPQ/36, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2788674346/12150691EEE1421FPQ/37, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2759212561/12150691EEE1421FPQ/19. All of these are independent as far as I can tell, but I do not have more time right now to look at other sources. - Indefensible (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the MarineLog ref count? Can you do a little better explaining things rather than just throwing more refs in here, as if somehow that explains things? What material is in the Marineref article that isn't simply regurgitated from their announcement, and if you do find "new" "Independent Content", how much of it is "in-depth"? Cos that's the test - in-depth "Independent Content", not just published "independently" which is what you appear to be relying on, but also that the *content* is independent.

Looking at your three new refs, the first is a copy of the "Le Monde" article from 21 March 2023. Total regurgitation of company bumpf with no "Independent Content" at all. Compare its content with, for example, this article in BNN which is almost identical and both based on the same company-provided material.

The second link appears to omit the headline which you can see here which reads "Newcleo announces plans for €1bn fundraiser as it targets UK nuclear industry". The entire article is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND. Here's an even better and more detailed article published in Nuclear Engineerin International the next day but which is also based on the announcement and also fails ORGIND. Or this one in The Times published on the same day, contains the same information based on the Announcement, also fails ORGIND and which was a follow-on article from this one in January where the topic company pre-announced their intention. That also fails ORGIND because it is also based entirely on company PR.

The last reference is this one from the Financial Times. The part about the topic company is three sentences and the last sentence is based on a quote from the CEO, leaving two sentences, both of which are a mere standard description of the company and a lack of "Independent Content", thereby failing ORGIND.

Can you perhaps check before you produce any more refs that the material isn't just regurgitated PR or based entirely on an interview? Try to at least identify a paragraph or something which contains "Independent Content"? HighKing⁺⁺ 10:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot access the article by Le Monde for comparison, but I disagree with your characterization of articles as lacking ORGIND based on just "puff pieces" from the company. These are secondary coverage in reliable sources. Based on the machine translation of this article, it discusses risks and challenges rather than just positive aspects of the fundraising. - Indefensible (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment concerns the publisher being unconnected with the topic company. The guidelines also require an analysis of the *content* - specifically, what paragraphs can you identify that contains original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So not regurgitated or unattributed content. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand independence, although others have said the same thing about me. Obviously there is a disagreement. Let us stick with the reference from Le Monde at least for now, since it proves the point and Le Monde is generally considered a reliable source.

(Per Le Monde's Wiki article, "Le Monde is considered one of the French newspapers of record, along with Libération and Le Figaro. A Reuters Institute poll in 2021 found that Le Monde is the most trusted French newspaper." So there should not be much controversy over using a reference from Le Monde in general. You previously wrote that "From what I can see, this company has a very active PR department," but claiming Le Monde is simply writing "puff pieces" that are repackaged PR from the subject is degradatory to Le Monde's editorial process--I do not see any disclaimer they are publishing a paid article for the subject here.)

In general, well-known businesses (of varying notability) have journalists and business analysts covering them, especially for startups or public companies, such as for investing purposes. (Put WP:ROUTINE aside for now, that is a separate argument.) Reviewing a press release shortly after publication is a completely normal and respectable activity for them to be doing. So your concern about the article closely following the press release is fundamentally not really a major issue. Of course if their article had zero bearing on the company's activities, it would be completely independent but would also probably be completely useless if not made-up fiction. What Le Monde is doing is providing secondary coverage which is based on but independent of the subject.

In particular, the press release https://www.newcleo.com/press-releases/newcleo-launches-equity-raise-of-up-to-e1bn-for-its-unique-circular-next-generation-nuclear-energy-solution/ you pointed at is in English, and there is no French version that I can see from the company. Le Monde had to translate it before covering in French, which is already a sort of analysis. Then if you read the article without just writing it off completely, you can see there are notable differences between it and the press release.

For example, the press release from Newcleo mentions "risk" but only in terms of nuclear proliferation. In the article by Le Monde, they mention risk in terms of technical reactor operation. And then in the Newcleo press release, they mention "challenges" not to the company but rather in terms of global sustainability goals and how the company will help meet them, whereas critically Le Monde (based on translation) uses challenges and problems (which is not mentioned in the press release) in terms of business operations due to "a technology...[that was] abandoned in 1997 by the French government, after countless technical problems, an exorbitant cost and the considerable mobilization of environmentalists." That is clearly a different meaning and independent analysis.

Therefore I think your analysis is wrong. - Indefensible (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot access the article by Le Monde for comparison... It's literally the first source you linked in your second comment, ProQuest document 2788723615, I'm not sure what you could mean by this Indefensible? Are you saying that you haven't read it? I was wondering why you linked it again. But look, if you insist they meet ORGCRIT we can list it at RSN, OK? Just give me a day or two to write something up. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that I can see the article on ProQuest but not on Le Monde's website because of the paywall. On Le Monde, the article title appears to be "Nucléaire : « Newcleo est en passe de devenir la start-up la mieux dotée d'Europe" but on ProQuest the article is titled "Le nucléaire se régénère par les start-up". There is obviously a difference there, right? I cannot look at the other version to compare. In any case, Le Monde is providing secondary coverage on the subject, there is no direct input from the primary source that I can see based on translation. - Indefensible (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Here based on this posting. I have a seen a lot of misunderstanding about WP:NCORP in AfD discussions lately, especially when it comes to WP:SIRS. It is not just about having sources, it is the evaluation of these sources which determines notability for companies. In order to not rehash what HighKing says above, they are correct with their assessment in this instance. The company can be verified and sources exists (although not to meet NCORP), so a redirect would be a suitable alternative to deletion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to where? You need a proposed target when voting to redirect. - Indefensible (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Indefensible:, the only thing "need[ed]" when voting in AfD discussions is competency. That would include reviewing the context of other people's votes prior to asking such questions. I stated "in order to not rehash what HighKing says above, they are correct with their assessment in this instance." The assessment by HighKing includes agreeing that the redirect target proposed by Alpha3031 as an alternative to deletion (pinging both users in case I misunderstood their contention).--CNMall41 (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, I was just asking for clarification instead of making a mistaken assumption as to your position. There are foreseeable cases where you agree in part or with the general argument but not with the specific conclusion. We should try having unambiguous communications to avoid misunderstandings.

In any case, I disagree with HighKigh's assessment per my reply above. What you should also understand is that your understanding of policy is not objectively "correct" but rather subjective. At least, that is my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then make your case on why this meets WP:NCORP using WP:SIRS instead of making accusations about people being subjective. Simply stating "subject has plenty of coverage to meet requirements" while providing two sources that fail WP:ORGCRIT is not going to do it. I have both been opining in deletion discussions for a long time based on current consensus on those guidelines. If you don't like the guidelines, then propose changing them. In the meantime, WP:AGF as just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them "wrong."--CNMall41 (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, did you even read my rebuttal to HighKing? Being subjective is not an accusation, it is a simple fact. I noted my opinion for consistency with that fact.

All I asked for was clarification on your redirect target, nothing more. But if you want to imply my lack of WP:COMPETENCE, I think you should better review your own misunderstandings first. - Indefensible (talk) 21:48, 24 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WBEM (AM)

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

No refs on the page for many years - it appears that the claims on the page are unverified and may never be. Unlikely that a tiny AM station ever got the kind of coverage needed to meet the WP:GNG but I await with interest others showing me how I'm wrong. JMWt (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Pennsylvania. JMWt (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete; fails WP:GNG. - Altenmann >talk 18:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Toughie because the location does not have full-scan newspaper, but I have scraped about five sources. There is stuff that is quite mushy and SYNTHy. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Sammi Brie's sources seem to provide SIGCOV of the topic when considering the alternate call signs and ownership. —siro χ o 18:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the newly-added source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Of the sources added to the article there appears to be enough WP:SIGCOV from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette articles to meet the GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:42, 16 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!} 00:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sindh Baloch Society

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

Fails GNG and NORG. It is a housing society but there is no indication of importance and I cannot locate any sources which would establish notability. There are lots of links for real estate in the neighborhood, but that is insufficient. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pakistan. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete; fails WP:GNG & WP:NORG. No references on this article. No article for it on Urdu Wikipedia or other local languages as far as I can find. 223.123.109.65 (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no references and the article has failed to establish any notability. ❤History Theorist❤ 01:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 01:23, 4 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 Pärnu Concert Hall. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pärnu City Orchestra

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

Nothing I can find that suggests this is notable. The only link from our friends on the page on et.wiki here that seems relevant is this one which would not appear to be enough to meet the WP:GNG on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music and Estonia. JMWt (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Pärnu Concert Hall because it, as well as et:Pärnu Linnaorkester, do have refs (but probably not enough for WP:GNG now). - Altenmann >talk 18:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO ("has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary"). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a policy about individuals. JMWt (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an organization of individuals and, according to my interpretation, would still qualify to remain. I agree that this article's reliance on a single source is a problem. I don't know Estonian, but searches in English and Russian turn up nothing useful. If that one source had come from elsewhere (e.g. personal website, blog, artists agency, minor Estonian publication, etc.), I would've been strongly in favor of deletion. However, it is cited in a national directory and with a sizable entry at that. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all your opinion, which you are entitled to. However you can't point to a notability policy about *individuals* and use it to claim that an *organisation* is notable. That's not how it works. JMWt (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me how it works. Article still gets a "keep" from me based on criteria 1 and 10 of WP:MUSICBIO. According to the entry in the EMIC database, they re-recorded Eino Tamberg's score for Pimedad aknad [et] (Dark Windows), a late 1960s television series that was restored in 2007. In addition, I have found coverage from Sirp, an arts magazine published by the Estonian Ministry of Culture, and MuusikaPlaneet, a website that covers Estonian music. These will be included in the article shortly. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:09, 4 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!} 03:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge orchestras are usually notable, but here no sources are available at all. BoraVoro (talk) 13:17, 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 redirect‎ to Interstate 85 in Georgia#Atlanta to South Carolina state line as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 02:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite Boulevard

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

Contested PROD. This doesn't seem to be a notable street, simply saying it's the location of American Megatrends isn't enough - that's the company being notable, not the building. (If this were not the case, AM's article would mention the street). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—this utterly fails both WP:GEOROAD (not a state highway) and WP:GNG (not the subject of significant coverage), thus it fails WP:N. Additionally, both images in the article are copyright violations and should be deleted from Commons shortly. Imzadi 1979 → 16:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per both of the above. Not notable, no coverage.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Interstate 85 in Georgia#Atlanta to South Carolina state line as an ATD; it's pretty much a frontage road that follows I-85 all the way north, and the 'exit list' is de facto within the I-85 article already. A short mention of the businesses along it (which I did add) is appropriate. Nate • (chatter) 21:55, 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!} 04:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie White

AfDs for this article:

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

Okay, okay, I'll do this one. Previously AfDd because it was another Natalie White (Natalie White (Survivor contestant) and PROD declined because it was previously AfDd (although procedurally the AfD was a different Natalie White), this particular Natalie White is not notable per WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST and therefore the article should be deleted. No evidence of enduring impact on the arts, major exhibitions, national critical review or anything else, in fact, that meets WP:ARTIST. Unrelated to this AfD, the article's history is unusually messy - probably the only notable thing here. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, United States of America, and West Virginia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should the subpage's name be "Natalie White (artist)" instead? I had the article renamed only because another editor wanted the artist to take over the base name. George Ho (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NARTIST. New references [25], [26]. Please do WP:BEFORE before nominating any article. 142.162.161.50 (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding reliable sources for the biographical information provided. The performance pieces are cited with brief mentions and interviews. The article as written in WP:PROMO. Fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to justify an encyclopedia entry, per WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON at this time. Article was created by a WP:SPA whose only two edits were to create this article and add a photo. Later it was directly edited by the artist. While these are not necessarily reasons for deletion, they may explain some of the promotional tone and style.Netherzone (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In case that the artist page is deleted, I intend to move the Survivor contestant page back to the base name. Is that okay? --George Ho (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfDs for THAT Natalie White have closed as delete and redirect, so I'd say FWIW that would be unwise and possibly result in a speedy delete. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to restore the article, but... ah, well.... George Ho (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't mean to waggle fingers... A result of this AfD could be a redirect to Survivor. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo piece edited by paid editors. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:GNG and WP:ARTIS. Biographical info like "Born to Parents Robert White and Gina Bombardiere in Fairmont, West Virginia. White has one sister, Elizabeth Marie White. Her upbringing was frugal, familial and religious." is unsupported by reliable sources. Elspea756 (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NARTIST isn't met. Her exhibitions are temporary. Which permanent collection is her piece part of? Graywalls (talk) 23:13, 5 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. Star Mississippi 02:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ejes Gist News

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

No evidence of any notability, the two sources have identical text, which is logical as they are a press release, not an actual article by a journalist. The site has not been the subject of much attention in general (only 10 Ghits?, some more as Ejesgist apparently). Fram (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A third source has been added[27], coincidentally posted today, about an endorsement of the news site by the "Humanitarian Movement for Development". Impressive, too bad that the organisation has apparently never been mentioned before they made this statement[28] and organised the "lecture" the other two sources are talking about. All of which is rather fishy. Fram (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The creator also shares a name with the site's founder (but claims to only be a relative of them), and their user page has been deleted twice for misuse of Wikipedia as a web host (autobiography). Possibly some sanctions are warranted. JoelleJay (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. The said pages were delete because they were not properly arranged or put together on Wikipedia.

2. Being a relative is not against Wikipedia policy... I don't think so...

3. The issues at hand is that the Name is Worth to be on Wikipedia a. It has been registered with CAC b. Names who are not registered with CAC are already here as cited by another users. Omajemite (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2023-09 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Talk Penn State

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

Subject lacks the necessary sourcing to pass WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. Let'srun (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Sports, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find podcast listings but nothing else. Fails WP:GNG for lack of RS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. I note that this program is mentioned at WKPS § Previous shows, but given that the program lists in that article in general, with all those airtimes, come dangerously close to program guide territory (which is one of the many things Wikipedia is not), I'm not as sold on a redirect as I otherwise might be. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 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 WTGZ#Programming. History will remain, so anyone interested in doing any merging can do so at their convenience. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SportsCall

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

Subject lacks the necessary sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Sports, and Alabama. Let'srun (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WTGZ#Programming, and add a passing mention preferably somewhere in the last sentence. According to WTGZ's website they still actively host SportsCall, so it'd make sense to redirect the article there. I agree that SportsCall isn't notable enough to have a standalone article, citing my severe struggle to find any non primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deauthorized (talk • contribs)
Agree with above as a partial merge to WTGZ § Programming. —siro χ o 02:30, 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 merge‎ to Bids for the 2036 Summer Olympics#Europe. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw bid for the 2036 Summer Olympics

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

Nusantara, Istanbul, and Mexico City have confirmed bids, but Warsaw does not. In general, cities that have official bids for the 2036 Summer Olympics should get articles, and none of the 3 officially bidding cities currently do. Georgia guy (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Bids for the 2036 Summer Olympics § Europe as WP:ATD. —siro χ o 02:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I don't see what confirmed status would change given this is effectively a reprint of a press release. GNG fail. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was draftified during this AfD. I have reverted. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 12:25, 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 merge‎ to Ex tempore decision. I can't relist this a fourth time, so I am somewhat backed into making a determination on what is closer to consensus here with minimal participation. I find this option as outlined by James500 to be the best way forward. Daniel (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oral reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada

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

This is essentially just a list of a certain type of case decided by the Canadian SC. There are no WLs (signifying that none of these cases are particularly important or notable). There are only 3 years, signifying that this is a project someone started and never finished. Ultimately, we do not have any sourcing which would indicate why this list is significant or notable. The mere fact that the SC can decided cases in this way does not mean that we need to have a list of all the times they did so. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Canada. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The editor who started this ages ago has made some edits recently so this is possibly the best option for now for this in-progress list. —siro χ o 02:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with moving to a draft, but the last substantive and productive edit to this page (by anyone) was in 2006. Highly unlikely anyone is going to pick back up where they left off, and even further, I do not see what this list adds to anything. There is no indication that being decided orally is of any significance that would give rise to a standalone list. 16:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ex tempore decision, which appears to be the parent topic, and merge the first paragraph of the lead (but not the list). Oral judgments of the Canadian courts is certainly a notable topic [29], but the article would probably need to be extensively rewritten to cover it. Supreme court cases are likely to satisfy GNG, but there is no explanation why oral decisions of the court should be listed separately from reserved decisions, and I cannot think of one. The page is a plausible redirect, and draftification never results in improvements. James500 (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to decide between Draftification or a Redirect/Merge combo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 17 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article and, just as importantly, aside from the nominator, no support for Deletion, Redirect or Merger. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Kelso

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

The article has a lot of WP:CRUFT with no proof of notability. Sources are episodes (primary) and a quick Google search 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 Scrubs characters. Spinixster (chat!) 14:22, 26 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!) 14:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG. Note, you'll find more results under "Dr. Kelso" or similar.
1. McFarland Book Beyond Sitcom: New Directions in American Television Comedy with a large amount of SIGCOV of the character in a variety of ways [30][31]
2. Character used as a case study for a few paragraphs in leadership book[32]
3. IGN has several articles with secondary SIGCOV of Kelso including several reviews and at least one list, eg [33][34][35][36], we can count this as one very solid source.
4. Some coverage around ethics and kelso in this book [37]
5. Here's some coverage of the character's arc and portrayal through the show 10 years after. [38]
6. Other short bits of coverage related to:
  - diversity and race [39]
  - gender [40]
  - more medical ethics [41]

Note this was not an exhaustive search.

—siro χ o 03:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the sources...

First source mostly mentions Kelso in plot summaries, so I don't think those parts prove notability. I do see parts that compare him to Dr. Cox or talk about their conflicts, so perhaps that can be used, but I don't see it as a reason as to why he's notable.
Second source is just a case study, as you have said, but it's perhaps not the best source to prove notability since it's only a paragraph.
IGN sources include 4 episode reviews and 1 list. I don't think a character being featured on a best characters list, especially a list for Scrubs characters only, really proves notability; the other 4 episode reviews doesn't seem to go much in depth about the character from a real-world perspective (he's mostly mentioned in plot summaries)
The fourth source has a commentary section that uses one of Kelso's decisions on the show as a case study. It's better than the second source, but it is just one episode it's taking the case study from, so it might not be good to prove Kelso's notability, but it can perhaps be used for the character section.
Fifth source only briefly mentions the character and sums up his storylines. It's pretty short and has no other commentary on the character.
Sixth sources:
- Diversity and race source is a brief mention as an example of racism.
- Gender source is also just a brief mention as an example of the slang word "hellcats"
- Based on previews because I can't find a full version of the source anywhere, the Medical ethics source seems to focus more on Dr. Cox and only mentions Kelso when Cox interacts with him.

So overall, there are a lot of sources that talk about Kelso as a character. While not a really good point towards notability, I do think the major sources about the characteristics of Kelso can be used, like the first and fourth. Spinixster (chat!) 04:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First source mostly mentions Kelso in plot summaries. You are mistaken. —siro χ o 04:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis on mostly. I did explain at the end of it that there are some parts that can be used. Spinixster (chat!) 07:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Mostly" is a relative term, and while "Does the source mention the subject?" is an either/or question, "Does the source mention the subject enough?" is not. I think we need to embrace the subjectivity here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Does the source mention the subject enough" is important here because for an article to be notable, it needs extensive coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Plot summaries don't count since they are trivial. Sources that cover the topic extensively from a real-world perspective do. Spinixster (chat!) 03:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be reading that essay in an unconventional way. I'd suggest a careful reread. Most of that essay has to do with Wikipedia articles, with a minor reiteration of the importance of secondary sources. You also may have missed the section of that essay, § Plot Summaries as Sources, which contradicts your own summary of that very essay almost to the word. —siro χ o 03:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That section was added in 2022 with no consensus, and the lead of the article says ... an article about a work of fiction or elements from such works should not solely be a summary of the primary and tertiary sources, they should also include real world context from reliable secondary sources. Coverage of fictional topics should provide balanced coverage that includes both plot summary and real-world context. In this case, plot summaries would be a tertiary source unless there is commentary, and there needs to be enough commentary on the character to prove the character's notability. Spinixster (chat!) 06:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear if you are implying anything and if so what it is. Is it your assessment that Beyond Sitcom: New Directions in American Television Comedy is a tertiary source? —siro χ o 08:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant that the plot summaries with no commentary are tertiary. Again, I explained that there are content that can be used. Spinixster (chat!) 11:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources found by Siroxo. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used some of the sources provided in the article, but of course I didn't do the ones I can't access. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a sufficiently notable fictional character based on sources identified. BD2412 T 17:41, 4 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeshree Singhania

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

Promo piece on a non-notable doctor. Sources offer only passing (or no) mentions, plus a couple of works authored by the subject, and a search finds nothing better. Fails WP:GNG, and nothing to suggest WP:NACADEMIC or similar notability either. Was draftified, but author moved straight back to mainspace, so here we are. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, United Arab Emirates, and India. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very clear fail of WP:GNG, a very straightforward 'per nom' from me... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing anything here that speaks to encyclopedic notability under either PROF or AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks as if it may have been created as part of a student course or editathon: the first substantial version is a layout template. The comment "Always cite your sources! No original research!" was in the References section of article until I removed it a moment ago. PamD 07:32, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Efe

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass the general or musician notability policies. Quote from previous AFD: Subject seems to appear on news majorly because of his clash with Beri over split percentages which resulted in the removal of the song from some streaming platforms, other than that, nothing better seems to be found out there that makes him notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. UtherSRG (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the coverage on the page already looks significant and there's obviously tons of coverage in Nigeria after a quick BEFORE.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above reasoning

Yoblyblob (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input is definitely needed for keeping...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cited coverage appears to pass WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, the subject has a charting song so passes criteria 2 of WP:MUSICBIO.4meter4 (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourcing uses the over the top language we've come to expect from Nigerian sources (subject is releasing a sex tape soon!), but they're in RS, so it's fine. Charting also helps notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:54, 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 no consensus‎. Of note is that WP:SINGER states that subjects may be notable per the criteria there, but this subject-specific notability guideline (WP:SNG) does not provide presumed notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalyn (singer)

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

Article about a singer, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claims are that she had a single peak #59 on the charts, which would be fine if the article were well-sourced but is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have better sourcing than this, and that she was nominated for a minor industry award that doesn't satisfy NMUSIC #8 at all.
For sourcing, we've got things like a link that now lands at this week's Billboard chart (#1 song by Doja Cat, so clearly not a chart from 2009) instead of whatever anybody thought they were linking to at the time, short unsubstantive human interest blurbs of the "local singer does stuff" variety in community hyperlocals in suburban Vancouver, and primary sourcing to Apple Music and IMDb that isn't support for notability at all -- while there is a second valid source for the chart position and an acceptable source for the non-notable award nomination, they're the only things here that are sourced properly. As I already noted, neither of those things are "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG -- but even on a WP:BEFORE search, I can't find anything else besides the Richmond/Surrey/Burnaby pennysavers again. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. HueMan1 (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to G.R.L.: Seems to be more remembered as part of the GRL group, although coverage is about a member that died recently. She was nominated for the Canadian Music Award, but the CBC article already used for sourcing is all there is that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the references are adequate for a stand-alone article. After all, she charted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Canadian Hot 100 is the standard national chart for that country, the subject's song at #59 is verifiable via inline citation in the article, as such WP:NSINGER#C2 is met, notability is presumed. There is sufficient additional verifiable information that we are not at risk of being unable to construct an article of start class or better. —siro χ o 05:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charting is fine if the article is sourced properly. #59 is not a high enough chart position that just technically verifying it via the chart itself would constitute an "inherent" notability freebie that would exempt a person from having to have any valid GNG-worthy sourcing about her at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSINGER per Siroxo's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion but consensus right now is leaning towards Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 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 merge‎ to United Nations Department of Global Communications. RL0919 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Development Business

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Only non-WP:IS sources. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Politics, Business, and Economics. UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been at AfD for four weeks running now. Somebody else please weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: you participated in the last AfD, any additional thoughts? – Joe (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ~~United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs~~ United Nations Department of Global Communications - I said "Keep" before, but nobody else responded. Like I mentioned before, this is a vital arm of the United Nations. Maybe it would help if I linked the three Events pages of Development Business. I was not aware the United Nations provided this, until this AFD arose. Maybe our other Wikipedians were also not aware of it. — Maile (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Making it unanimous with the respondents below. — Maile (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United Nations Department of Global Communications. According to their history page, Development Business was launched by the United Nations Department of Public Information (now United Nations Department of Global Communications), so a better merge target, since I can't see anything that links this with the UN DESA. Maile66 is right that this seems significant, but I cannot find any independent reliable sources which would establish notability; the best I can find is this interview, which is not independent. So, failing GNG, a merge seems most appropriate. (I'm surprised that I can't find more on this and wonder if I've missed something - very happy to change my !vote if additional sources are uncovered.) WJ94 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United Nations Department of Global Communications, with no prejudice against future expansion -- I was also surprised by the lack of SIGCOV sources here. Suriname0 (talk) 03:58, 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 delete‎. Sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 02:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Master ad Vitam

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

This doesn't seem to have received significant attention from independent (non-masonic) sources. Could be a redirect to Scottish_Rite#Degree structure, but doesn't have the notability for a separate article. Fram (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and United States of America. Fram (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In general articles on Masonic degrees are sorely lacking on Wikipedia to the point where it isn't a very good source of information on Freemasonry. Even the basic ritual structure is hard to figure out from the Wikipedia articles, which are in sore need of revisions. Also instead of having these giant articles with poor structure and organization, I am hoping to craft smaller pieces to try to clear up the issues, but it is going to take a while.

Scottish_Rite#degree structures is a big part of the problem - It has about 60+ different degrees smashed into a chart that is hard for anyone to understand.

Full disclosure, I'm both a member of the Scottish Rite and a Freemason - But the current slate of articles needs a larger organizational revision in some places. Jjazz76 (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't address the basic issue, that this degree doesn't seem to have the necessary attention from non-Masonic sources to warrant an article here. If no one else has taken such an outside interest in these degrees, then we shouldn't be the first to do so. Fram (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of stuff on Wikipedia that doesn't have much if any "outside" interest. Pretty much most religious topics are relevant in for that religion but other folks outside would say "who cares."

Again I'll wait for the discussion to conclude, but there is plenty that has been written on this degree. Just look at the cited sources as a start.

Instead of trying to delete Wikipedia, which seems to be your long term strategy, how about actually build it out? Do the work instead of critiquing others. Jjazz76 (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of evidently insufficient independent notability. Arguments to the effect that "other such stuff also exists here" do not cut it; neither do assertions that "we need to expand coverage on this". Still, we could graciously merge what in terms of sourcing can be salvaged to the article Supreme Council, Scottish Rite, Northern Jurisdiction, USA. -The Gnome (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:47, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Rivera

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

This is a tough one. A short but strong article for this tyro chef, but when you try and peel back the layers, you quickly find a worrying lack of substance. Source 1 and 3 are interviews. Source 2, the writer asked Rivera a question and he directed the writer to another cook. Source 4, Seattle Mag, is a review-cum-interview that posits the question, "Is Rivera really as great at cooking as he is at marketing himself on social media?" - and we start to get to the heart of the issue right there, IMHO. Source 5 is a podcast interview as is source 6, source 7 (American University Radio), source 9, source 10 and source 11 (the best of 'em, the San Francisco Chronicle podcast features the classic line, in response to the question, what's your deal, "I think, like, I've been asked that for years. Forever now. I'm Eric. I am kind of a chef thing. I don't really know. I mean, honestly, like, I'm kind of in a weird spot right now or I'm evolving kind of into a whole new place for chef restaurant industry thing."

What we have, in summary, is boss-level self-promotion, a lot of podcasts and interviews and oddly enough a failure of WP:GNG. There's no independent SIGCOV at all here. WP:BEFORE gets us some routine 'opening' announcements, but basically we're - if anything - WP:TOOSOON. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I seem to find at least three chefs with this name (and hits for a murderer as well), [42], [43] and [44], each with different hairstyles. One ala Bob Ross, one bald and one in between. I'm going to have to examine each one a bit closer. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I found the murderer, too. A horrible conflation of roles, mind: "I could murder a bacon buttie"... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable individual with no significant coverage. Also, this is a paid work from Upwork and the creator of this article was also hired to remove the paid tag from another page which can be seen in their contributions. 113.193.45.126 (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As it happens, I'm very uncomfortable with paid editing per se. And I cannot help but recognize the awful aroma of promotion in the menu. But, after all is said and done, notability trumps everything. And the plethora of sources supporting our subject's notability decide the issue. Seattle magazine, San Francisco Chronicle, Food & Wine: these are not trifles. -The Gnome (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take a closer look at the nomination? Seattle Mag is an interview, San Francisco Chronicle is a podcast, not an independent RS. I saw what you did with the trifles reference, but the sourcing here is definitely fishy. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd rather not close this discussion as No consensus which means we need a little more participation here. If any editors who frequent AFD discussions cruise by this one, please look over the article, sources and weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur with the nominator, this is either TOOSOON, or will never be enough. Fails SIGCOV on all of the sources. UtherSRG (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tried to find decent sourcing, there just isn't enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 11:49, 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 keep‎. Comments made after a list of sources was provided converged on keeping the article. RL0919 (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aunt Bee

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

Many sources in the article are primary, 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 The Andy Griffith Show characters. Spinixster (chat!) 07:07, 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!) 07:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Andy Griffith Show characters. The article is unsourced and the sources to show notability do not seem to exist. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per suggestion by QuicoleJR. Do not merge. Unsourced material is not dumped elsewhere in Wikipedia; it gets deleted. -The Gnome (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as WP:ATD. There isn't any sourced material to WP:PRESERVE and it doesn't meet even our most basic policies. If someone eventually does find some reliable coverage, it can be expanded at the redirect target. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Sotirin, Patricia J.; Ellingson, Laura L. (2013). "(Not) Like a Mother: Black and White Maternal Aunts". Where the Aunts are: Family, Feminism, and Kinship in Popular Culture. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press. pp. 15–36. ISBN 978-1-60258-330-6. Retrieved 2023-09-24 – via Internet Archive.
  The book provides extensive analysis of Aunt Bee. The book notes: "The links between the aunt as mother, the nuclear family, and cultural nostalgia for a sanitized version of American small-town life are starkly evident across the episodes of The Andy Griffith Show that centrally feature Aunt Bee (about 55 out of 249 original shows). Aunt Bee mothers both her widowed nephew, Sheriff Andy Taylor, and his son, Opie, in the absence of a wife and mother. Aunt Bee was introduced into the Griffith bachelor household in the premiere episode "The New Housekeeper."" The plot centers on Opie's resistance to her and his eventual acceptance based on his realization of her need to care for him and his father and their need for maternal love and housekeeping order. Given that the show casts her as the maternal center of the Taylor family, she affirms the promise of the nuclear family as a source of nurture, resilience, and strength, offering cultural reassurance that the bosom of the family is larger than the biological mother (a reassurance physically embodied in the plump, matronly dowdiness of actress Frances Bavier)."
  The book later notes: "In spite of the assurances of the maternal aunt figure, Aunt Bee transgresses this depiction of idealized American family life in subtle ways that invite us to critically examine this representation of the maternal aunt and her place in the family. First, her presence unsettles the insularity and stability of the nuclear family. By standing in for the deceased mother, Aunt Bee marks an absence in the familial triangle, creating a dynamic imbalance that unsettles assumptions even as it affirms the value of the mother and the ideal family. In addition, Aunt Bee belies the cultural promise of feminine fulfillment in marriage, home, and family. Several episodes revolve around Aunt Bee's need to ..."
2. Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (2000) [1985]. "Aunt Bee Taylor". The Andy Griffith Show Book: From Miracle Salve to Kerosene Cucumbers: the Complete Guide to One of Television's Best-loved Shows (2 ed.). New York: St. Martin's Griffin. pp. 53–59. ISBN 0-312-26287-6. Retrieved 2023-09-24 – via Internet Archive.
  The book provides seven pages of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Bee Taylor is a warm and gentle lady. She has been baptized. She is Mayberry's Good Samaritan, and it is her tender heart, which is as wide as her kitchen, that makes everyone love her. It can truly be said that a stranger has never entered the Taylor house, because Aunt Bee makes all feel right at home immediately. Bee takes mighty fine care of Andy and Opie by nourishing them both physically and spiritually. The coffeepot is never empty, and the cookie jar is always full in Aunt Bee's kitchen. And there's plenty of homemade loving to go around."
3. Kelly, Richard (1981). "Aunt Bee and Opie". The Andy Griffith Show. Winston-Salem, South Carolina: John F. Blair. pp. 45–46. ISBN 0-89587-043-6. Retrieved 2023-09-24 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The character of Aunt Bee, played by Frances Bavier, provided a stable domestic center for Andy and Opie. Like Griffith, Knotts, and Dodson, she had a strong theatrical background. ... The Andy Griffith Show provided her with her longest and most successful run—from 1960 to 1971. Unlike Griffith, she continued in the series when it became Mayberry, R.F.D. As the fussing and matronly Aunt Bee, Bavier's acting was always precise. Kindly, sympathetic, domestic, and somewhat naive, Aunt Bee was at her best when housekeeping for the Taylors or becoming "tiddly" after purchasing some tonic from an itinerant medicine man. Although she sometimes provided complications for Andy—as when she appeared to be dating the married butter-and-egg man, or when she went off on a visit, leaving Andy to maintain order in the house—she ostensibly served as a sort of mother-aunt-wife to Andy, one who looked after his home, son, and stomach. They cared for each other, respected each other, but there was not a strong emotional tie between them. Both characters, but especially Aunt Bee kept a tight rein on their feelings in favor of domestic and social propriety."
4. Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (1991). "Aunt Bee". Aunt Bee's Mayberry Cookbook. Nashville, Tennessee: Rutledge Hill Press. ISBN 1-55853-119-X. Retrieved 2023-09-24 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "It's no surprise that a cook as wonderful as Aunt Bee can't keep her talents hidden under a bushel basket. She once entertained international palates when a Russian-American summit meeting took place in her house. And she even went Oriental when she opened Aunt Bee's Canton Palace, a Chinese restau- rant. Though an unpretentious soul, Aunt Bee has had her moments in the sun. She won the Tampico Tamale Contest with a grand prize of a trip to Mexico. ... What Aunt Bed means most of all to Mayberry is love. Whether it's her delicious cooking, her warm smile, or her caring hugs, nobody brings more heartfelt love to Mayberry than Aunt Bee."
5. Parness, Jeffrey A. (October 2013). "Aunt Bee as Mom, Stepmom, or Grandmom?" (PDF). Drake Law Review. Vol. 62. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-09-24. Retrieved 2023-09-24.
  The article notes: "At times, the benefits of expanded parentage and nonparent childcare orders over parental objection are clear: Opies need Aunt Bees, and Aunt Bees need Opies. Andy clearly invited Bee to help rear Opie. In the event of a falling out, any newfound displeasure Andy had with Bee would probably have nothing to do with Bee’s care of—or love for—Opie. Allowing courts to order continuing contact between Bee and Opie on Bee’s request and over Andy’s objection in order to serve Opie’s interests seems quite sensible."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Aunt Bee to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how reliable or independent the fourth source is because it is a cookbook based on Aunt Bee's recipes, and the note is from the introduction of the character.

The second source seems to be more of a plot summary, which does not necessarily prove notability. Other sources seem okay. Spinixster (chat!) 09:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. With three out of the five sources considered "okay", there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started a cultural impact section in the article. Some of these sources might do well there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forensics on the purported support for the article, provided above by Cunard:

Sotirin, Patricia J.; Ellingson, Laura L. (2013). "(Not) Like a Mother: Black and White Maternal Aunts".

Exactly as the title promises, this work is about aunts and their maternal role in black and white families. The passages on Aunt Bee are used, as many other characters are used, to drive the points made in the book about the idealized American family and other notions. This is a book, if we must take it down to the plainest of descriptions, about aunts; and not about a specific aunt. In plain terms, every aunt referenced in this book does not acquire the attribute of notability.

Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (2000) [1985]. "Aunt Bee Taylor" in The Andy Griffith Show

Is every character in that show notable enough to merit a separate, dedicated Wikipedia article? This book reveals its hand on the cover, where we read that it's The Complete Guide to one of Television's Best Shows. The key word here is "complete." And, as promised, it has chapters dedicated to each and every speaking character that passed in front of the show's cameras. One is on aunt Bee. So, essentially, a directory of characters, enriched with photos and history. Mayors Pike and Stoner get their write up but they dare not wade inside Wikipedia.

Kelly, Richard (1981). "Aunt Bee and Opie". The Andy Griffith Show.

Another completist's tome. Aunt Bee appears in the sub-chapter "Aunt Bee and Opie", part of the chapter "Developing a Cast". Although the quote appended in the book's citation above appears promising, in reality it offers just a tad more than a TV Guide's presentation of a show's characters. This, too, is a directory. What it certainly is not is something dedicated, to any extent, to our contested, beloved aunt.

Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (1991). Aunt Bee's Mayberry Cookbook.

A commercial, tie-in cook book using the character's name to attract buyers. Nothing more. We've had soundtracks and other marketing offerings tied to the show. None of them, per se, rendered notable the character they used. Andy wore roper boots; we have a lemma on cowboy boots but not on roper boots, no matter how many times these boots got a write-up.

I'm sorry. I loved that show, and I loved the character, but I'd be amiss in my work here if I were to base my suggestions on emotion or nostalgia. -The Gnome (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
In "(Not) Like a Mother: Black and White Maternal Aunts", Aunt Bee receives extensive analysis on multiple pages. Even though she is not "the main topic of the source material", multiple pages of coverage clearly "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail".
This article from The Journal of Popular Culture notes:
The Andy Griffith Show is a nostalgic American popular cultural masterpiece valid for all time. Consistently ranked in the top ten television shows (and number one during its last season), The Andy Griffith Show ran on CBS from October 3, 1960, through the end of the 1967-68 season. It has had perpetual mass appeal in syndication, and since its debut, it has never been off the air. Learning its origins, revealing some behind-the-scenes aspects, and reviewing many of the episodes have led to the identification of specific factors that have contributed to the show's phenomenal success and endurance.
Owing to its "perpetual mass appeal in syndication" and legacy, many books from academic publishers have covered the show in substantial detail. There is no support in policy to discount the coverage in academic books for being too detailed. The Andy Griffith Show's last new episode aired in 1968. The Andy Griffith Show Book: From Miracle Salve to Kerosene Cucumbers: the Complete Guide to One of Television's Best-loved Shows was first published 17 years later in 1985. Very few television shows receive this level of coverage 17 years after they have finished airing. Very few television characters have numerous pages in multiple books about them.
Cunard (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the show might be notable -and this one certainly is- but its notability does not pass on to every character independently. I guess we differ on what stand-alone lemmas need keeping and what not. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on sources above. I agree that GNG does not say Aunt Bee would need to be the main topic of a scholarly work (meaning a book written entirely about her character). A discussion of Aunt Bee within a book about fictional aunts is fine for GNG, and a discussion about Aunt Bee within an independent and secondary book about the show (which they do appear to be) is also fine. Others may have a stricter interpretation of GNG, but to me we are well within the bounds of acceptability for an article. Rhino131 (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Doesn't that line of argument make practically every character that appeared on the Andy Griffith Show notable enough to merit their own, stand-alone article? As Cunard wrote, there's a ton of written material about the show out there. -The Gnome (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It depends of the level of scholarly analysis. A simple mention that a certain character appeared in a certain episode is not Significant Coverage. But the above clearly shows there is more written about this particular character. The fact that a lot of books have been written on this show means there are lots of potential reliable sources out there, which are what we use to determine notability in articles. We go by what the sources say. Rhino131 (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG per above sources. Allow me a few words.

What's important in each and every case is that it be possible for someone to write encyclopedia article about the topic. The never-to-be-reached ideal is for every article to reach "Good Article" status. But note that Good Articles have no strict length requirement (WP:GACR), they merely need to cover the notability of the subject in appropriate breadth.

It's not unlikely that most main or recurring characters on The Andy Griffith Show are individually notable given the place that show occupies in the American television canon and the syndication and coverage it's received over the past 80 years.

—siro χ o 08:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Siroxo: Just notifying you that your signature didn't render correctly. Spinixster (chat!) 08:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added date. —siro χ o 08:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find one full-text source that I used to add a small cultural impact section to the article. It could definitely use expansion. I also found a few hits in Google Scholar: Aunt Bee as Mom, Stepmom, or Grandmom? This one uses Aunt Bee as an example to explore the legal status of non-parent caregivers. She seems to feature in this book as well: Where the Aunts Are: Family, Feminism, and Kinship in Popular Culture Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listing these other sources here not necessarily for use in the article (which needs more sourcing) but as examples of the ubiquity of this character in the culture: Culture Wars, When Do I Get to Be? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:10, 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. This article was sent to AFD just a few hours after it was created and a lot of editing has occurred since the nomination which was the second edit to the article. I see a mix of Keeps and Deletes after 3 relistings which leaves me at No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knysna fine art

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

Lack of notability. My confidence in the sources is not enhanced by the fact that all of them are blocked by the library where I edit. TheLongTone (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Visual arts, Museums and libraries, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are accessible for me. Some are not independent, but I believe this contributes to N:ORG while this is not likely independent content. Weak keep as I imagine there's some offline sourcing. I'll look for it while this is at AfD. Star Mississippi 13:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the online sources where these are available DoubleTripleYou (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that the subject of the article should be eligible for publication as the gallery in question is the largest of its kind in South Africa. I have added additional sources since first publication DoubleTripleYou (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is promotional, stating It is considered one of the top contemporary galleries in South Africa with a citation to a travel guide and no further information about why it might be considered important. Also states Read, who is considered one of the foremost authorities on contemporary South African art with citation to the gallery's site and a tour guide. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: looking at the sources as a whole, what doesn't fail WP:V fails WP:N. Not part of my consideration but notable to the discussion is the concerns about WP:PROMOTION.

microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:00, 19 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Models

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

Notability is not inherited. Why the members might have achieved success with other bands, here we have an issue with one single and a Peel session that does not indicate any chart success. Language is also promotional in character. Karst (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Karst (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am familiar with this item. The article says accurately that the Models are often mentioned in punk rock histories because they had members that went on to bigger things later. True, but they accomplished nothing notable in their own right. They are only of interest as a brief stop in the biography of Marco Pirroni. I have added some text to his article to verify his brief membership in this band, and that's all that is necessary for Wikipedia. Delete this article for lack of independent notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:59, 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 merge‎ to List of Neighbours characters. RL0919 (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Neighbours characters

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

My primary concern is identical to that expressed in the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Hollyoaks characters. "This does not meet WP:NLIST. It should be either deleted.. or mergerd... . Consider that eventually, each show will finish and then this division into current and former characters will be even more pointless." I'll also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neighbours characters, which seems to be relevant to this (under the old name of List of regular Neighbours characters), and which concluded with Merge into single article that was clearly not done. I'll also note that recent Talk:List_of_Neighbours_characters#Merge_from_List_of_former_Neighbours_characters, dominated by participants of WikiProject Soap Operas ended with "no merge". Given the contradictory consensus on merge expressed in those past discussions, discussion in a wider venue not dominated by a single WikiProject seems needed. I'd be fine with a merge, but IMHO we don't need more than one list of characters for this or any other show (if the length is an issue, we can always entertain a split into 2+ parts such as A-M, N-Z or so on). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
merge into one list P.S. List of regular Neighbours characters was the formr name of List of former Neighbours characters ("R from move") Move summary says "Revert name changes in light of series returning to production" - which is an extra argument in favor of a single list: no one can possibly know who is former and who is current in the long run. - Altenmann >talk 18:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann And there is more: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of recurring Neighbours characters... and see Category:Lists of Neighbours characters. Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – First of all, the merge was done, but this was because the show had ended, so *every* character was former. Secondly, it is not difficult to know who is former and who is present: when a character leaves and is no longer appearing, they go to the former list. If they return, they go to the present list. It's really not that hard. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – I was just about to go to bed so this will probably be quite short, but here goes: Firstly, both fully sourced pages do meet LISTN as there are many sources clearly indicating present and former characters differently. Neighbours itself is also quite famous for its use for bringing back former characters for guest stints, particularly for the anniversaries and the intended finale, the latter of which was highly reported on due to former characters from various decades all returning, especially ones played by high profile actors such as Kylie Minogue and Margot Robbie. There are also many sources which specifically focus on the present characters and former ones separately, which I am happy to list in the next few days (and hopefully other editors of the project will too), which illustrate how both are notable as a group individually.

Also, separating the lists is not pointless. It is important as it ensures that readers are aware between the difference between current and former characters. This soap is known for it's high changeover and aired continously for 37 years. I disagree that it means that there is a lot of work for editors – it is not, as editors are constantly updating character pages etc and we also move characters when they debut, leave, return, are upgraded to regular or recast. Usually when a character leaves an experienced editor or IP moves the character to the former list the minute the episode airs. Merging the pages could cause the page to be too long and possibly tagged with a *too long* template, let alone it making it even harder to navigate. WP:Wikipedia is not paper – two pages (one of former and one for present) is not an issue at all and makes it easier to navigate. Also, that policy, along with Wikipedia:Article size, explains how it is important to not make pages too long and too big as it affects download times and creates other issues and suggests that long tables are split off into stand alone pages. The former and present character lists have been used for decades by the soap community through excessive consensus (as I have seen through looking at a lot of the revision history etc from years ago) and this has worked well for years and never caused an issue. Additionally, if the show does end again (which bear in mind could not be for another 50 or so years – Coronation Street is still airing 63 years later!) then we will cross that bridge when we get to it. Also, a split of it between 2 parts would not make sense and it also would not show who is currently appearing in the show and who isn't. The lists are notable for non fans of the show, but for readers who are fans who do watch the show currently, a list not clearly indicating who is currently appearing and instead showing characters from 30+ years ago would not be helpful. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they are returning, they are not former, just recurring. List of recurring Neighbours characters exists, in fact, and needs to be merged too, as clearly there is unnecessary overlap. As a reader, I want one comprehensive list of characters, not n list divided with unclear criteria (by date or status). Status (recurring, former, whatever) or date of introduction trivia can be covered in the main list, which can even be made sortable by such parameters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a character returns after an absense they are not recurring, recurring characters are different. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is functional and useful. I'm not convinced merging with List of Neighbours characters would be in the project's best interest, but even if that were to happen it would be a merge, not a delete. As I have mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of recurring Neighbours characters, the merge consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neighbours characters was in entirely different circumstances (i.e. when there were no present characters), and was enacted at that time. U-Mos (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@U-Mos For the record, I prefer merge to deletion for all referenced content here, too. But I don't get it why readers are supposedly better served by having multiple similar lists? An average reader wants to see one list of characters, without trying to figure out why someone is not here and looking for them on a former/recurring/by date/something else sublist. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets NLIST. The list is functional and provides a split for readers. The show hasn't ended so running away with a theoretical situation and using it as a reason for deletion is bad faith. – Meena • 14:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would AGF if the nomination reason wasn't total grot. The show hasn't ended, next. – Meena • 19:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Neighbours characters - I normally hate this word, but this is so much WP:CRUFT. We do not need a meticulous listing of "former" characters from this show. No show, not even something as big as The Simpsons, should have a "former" character list. Especially since almost any of these characters can be brought back at any time. I also believe this after this discussion, which I believe should definitely be taken into account for the closer. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Neighbours characters One list seems sufficient. Otherwise, it becomes WP:CRUFT. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep: This article is massive and it, along with another huge article, will make List of Neighbours characters absolutely massive and very hard to navigate. Not to mention that by having this article, it is consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Deleting this article will just go against all other soap opera and even some other TV series articles, which makes zero sense. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still a bit unclear if this article should be merged or kept…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I see the comments that this would create an article that is too large, but the answer is to clean up the unsourced material. As is, there is still a case for deletion. But merge is a valid compromise and WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every single character on both pages are sourced? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps @Shooterwalker was referring to the List of recurring Neighbours characters, which is almost totally unsourced? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. And the List of Neighbours characters is short enough that WP:SIZE shouldn't be an issue. The extent of the merge and clean-up can be handled through editing, but we don't need multiple lists about the same thing. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:24, 5 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 merge‎ to List of Doctor Who audiobooks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Runaway Train

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No references. Fails the general and book specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Popular culture. UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
merge into List of Doctor Who audiobooks: the latter does have a section for Eleventh Doctor. Maybe I am lazy but I failed to find independent sources for WP:GNG.- Altenmann >talk 18:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who audiobooks, where it is already listed. I also failed to find any significant coverage or reviews on this. Rorshacma (talk) 14:44, 4 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!} 03:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harold J. Ross

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No references that have all three required qualities. Fails the general and artist specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, United States of America, and Kansas. UtherSRG (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice stuff, but fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing found in Jstor, Gscholar, Gbooks. Not listed in the Getty ULAN. Sadly, even the NYT piece used is an interview, so would only partially help notability. Delete for lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 4 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. Star Mississippi 12:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rho Capital Partners

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No references hace significant coverage so fails the general and corporation specific policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Finance, Organizations, Business, United States of America, and New York. UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only found the usual routine company listings and statistics; other sources seem to be press releases. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Most sources are just based on investment participation for other companies. Still, no significant coverage.

Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 12:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No SIGCOV about the fund, beyond routine business transactions or non-independent sources. 22:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Grapes of Wrath (band) in absence of opposition. ✗plicit 23:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Jones (musician)

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

WP:BLP of a musician, whose principal notability claim is as a band member and session player rather than as an individual. Full disclosure, I was actually the original creator of this, under the inclusion standards that applied in 2004 -- but WP:NMUSIC has been tightened up considerably in the past 20 years, and it's no longer clear that Jones would pass contemporary standards anymore.
At the time, the notability criterion he passed was "member of two notable bands" -- but even that's strictly a technicality, because Band #2 was really just Band #1 picking a new name when one founding member left, and then went back to its original name later on when the band patched it up with the prodigal. So fundamentally he was really just a member of one notable band that underwent a temporary name change, rather than two genuinely distinct bands who attained notability independently of each other.
Other than that, he has been a session player on other musicians' albums and tours, but has never been a solo artist in his own right -- and that content is sourced entirely to glancing namechecks of Jones's existence as a session player rather than any coverage that's substantively about Jones for the purposes of getting him over GNG.
Two of his other three fellow Grapes just have redirects to the band rather than their own standalone BLPs, and the third also just had a redirect until an WP:SPA with a possible WP:COI turned it into an article three days ago that was promptly put up for WP:AFD as not properly sourcing standalone notability independently of the band either. So under 2023-vintage standards, all Jones really needs is a redirect to The Grapes of Wrath (band) rather than his own standalone article as a separate topic. Bearcat (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Related discussions: 2023-09 Kevin Kane (musician) (closed as redirect)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 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!} 04:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Nasirabadi

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

Not seeing Wikipedia:POET here. Obvious failure of GNG. Tetrainn (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 01:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Three best sources fail WP:GNG.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://irfannasirabadi.blogspot.com/?m=1	personal biography			✘ No
https://allfamousbirthday.com/irfan-nasirabadi/		no editorial oversight, circular referencing		✘ No
https://www.celebsagewiki.com/irfan-nasirabadi		per above	~	✘ 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}}.

NotAGenious (talk) 18:31, 4 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.

(non-admin closure) The result was Speedy delete‎ per WP:G11. Conyo14 (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Gee

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP (actually WP:AUTOBIO if you check the creator's username, because he didn't even try to obscure his identity) about a musician not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC.
For starters, the page was actually created at the title "New drill king from Ghana" rather than his name -- but we title articles with the subject's name, not with promotional marketing statements, so I've had to move the page.
But even more importantly, even the body text is written in a promotional manner, and is failing to document any specific achievements that could be measured against NMUSIC criteria at all, and it's referenced entirely to primary sources (Twitter, Instagram, the results page of a Google search) and blogs while not showing one shred of WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources at all.
As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which emerging musicians are free to write about themselves in an advertorial manner -- but nothing here, either in the content or the sourcing, satisfies our inclusion standards at all. Bearcat (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ghana. Bearcat (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced WP:ARTSPAM does not meet any inclusion criteria one might name-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:17, 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 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. Star Mississippi 02:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Fetter

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

References are corporate profiles, PR, other routine coverage, WP:PRIMARY non-independent non-coverage, X of Y non-rs articles and passing mentions. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 09:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School, not sure if that would make him notable? [45] Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Might do if he has published a good bit, if he is doing that. I don't think a lecturer position is particular notable. See what turns up. He has an award the "2017 Henry Cohn Humanitarian Award" which may be something. scope_creep^Talk 14:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:51, 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 keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Isaacs

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

The article lacks enough context and majorly highlights the perfections of the person in mention. This is not from a neutral point of view Fredabila (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Forbes contributor piece [46], rest is all local coverage, talking about the quirky commercials he makes. Certainly odd, but not seeing notability beyond the other hundreds of such lawyers in the US that all make commercials. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has had a song by a notable rapper written about him and gone viral/had his business go viral with Superbowl commercials. Additionally, involving an individual's philanthropy in an article is hardly calling them "perfect" and the language of the initial deletion nomination feels charged/biased itself.Captbloodrock (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is the lawyer that Jack Harlow wrote a well-known song about, he literally mentions him by name. Also, not all of the coverage for him is local; the A/V Club did an article about his Super Bowl commercial as well-- https://www.avclub.com/all-other-super-bowl-commercials-pale-in-comparison-to-1841449145 Anatomyoffear (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, since my first draft of the article I've included more thorough sources from reliable outlets, as well as citing a news story that occurred a few days later in which the subject became the sponsor of a major college sports team. The Wikipedian who nominated the article also appears to have some sour grapes over their own autobiographical article being deleted a few times, and based on the tone of their nomination for deletion I feel it was made in less than good faith.Captbloodrock (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: giving it one more week, borderline no consensus leaning delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a few more sources to establish notability, including an article from the Australian Business Journal. I've brought this up a few times now and it hasn't been addressed but I feel it's worth pointing out again I feel the initial nomination was made in bad faith and that we shouldn't even be in an AFD discussion at this point.Captbloodrock (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article includes adequate references. Local coverage is acceptable for biographies. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets notability criteria; article is adequately cited.EEBowen (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough significant coverage to pass WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 18:02, 4 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 merge‎ to Great Directors. Star Mississippi 02:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Ismailos

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NFILMMAKER and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Greece. UtherSRG (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No in-depth coverage from secondary RS. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There seems to be quite a lot of coverage around her film Great Directors, but little else that isn't just puff. If that survives, a merge might be appropriate. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the "Great Directors" as suggested seems ok. There is coverage for the film/work. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone else agree on the merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Anything which meets GNG requirements seems to be about Great Directors. WJ94 (talk) 13:13, 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio (Internet humour)

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

Appears to fail WP:N. Couldn't find much secondary sources online and the article only cites 6 sources, two of which (Dexerto and Sportskeeda) have been deemed as unreliable per WP:VG/RS. It also cited We Got This Covered which I've removed in accordance with WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED.

indy100 could be reliable due to being owned by The Independent, but I'm not so sure about Distractify. Jurta talk 11:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jurta: Comment I feel as if this is one of those weird situations where the subject itself is certainly notable (billions of views), but there is not enough coverage in reliable sources. —Panamitsu (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Internet. Jurta talk 11:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i don't think it should be deleted, per se, but it is not yet notable. unless and until it can be featured in more secondary sources, this article should stay off of wikipedia and on other sites more suited to the coverage of such topics. Nucg5040 (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Mary Sue is considered to be generally reliable. Dexerto was incorrectly tagged as unreliable. It is only listed as an unreliable source regarding video games, and a recent, fairly extensive RfC did not establish general unreliability (because it was archived before it was closed). Not sure about Yahoo, as this is a syndicated In The Know piece, not a Yahoo News article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs) 12:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an argument to delete the article. This article looks terrible to me, and there is only few cited sources. 2001:448A:11A2:14E2:5D16:892A:8ECB:CDEF (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm with Panamitsu on this; I think the meme is well-known but the lack of serious coverage makes it unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. Moonreach (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not know your meme. Yahoo and the like will always run throw-away pieces on every internet trend.. that does not mean that we have to have an article on it. This does not raise to the level of something like Florida Man or other 'notable' memes. A sudden blip of interest (which is self-feeding - one article will always spawn a nearly identical one from a different outlet) does not mean there is enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability (web) in my view ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure what is this page? This is an unclear page at all. There is also no indication of sources and it has only few sources on it. 2001:448A:11A6:1B76:D15B:60DD:5E62:AA13 (talk) 13:57, 30 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 List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. History is under the redirect if someone wants to merge it. Star Mississippi 02:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Hodges (CSI: Crime Scene Investigation)

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

Most sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search 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 CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. Spinixster (chat!) 10:10, 26 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!) 10:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters per nom. Conyo14 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like other articles about CSI characters, this is bloated and in need of better sourcing, but it needs to be trimmed down, not deleted. Looper TV Insider Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a character from a show I've watched many times, I was able to reduce much of its excess content. Take a look at the article now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are routine at best. Sorry :/. Conyo14 (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources are either plot summaries or interviews, which do not prove notability. Sources need to be secondary, cover the character extensively and be written from a real-world perspective. Spinixster (chat!) 03:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SECONDARY. These sources are fine. In this scenario, the primary source would be the episode itself. I am not at liberty to comment on your other concern. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at liberty??? Conyo14 (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. I was placed under a topic ban at AE. I don't agree with it, but I don't break it. I have opinions about WP:FICTIONAL but I'm not allowed to tell you what they are. That part of this issue must be decided without me, at least for now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it may be fine as you said, but it is not enough to prove notability. More sources that discuss the character extensively and in depth (WP:SIGCOV) and talk about the character from a real-world perspective (WP:FICT). It should not only be plot summaries (WP:NOTPLOT). Spinixster (chat!) 01:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not allowed to discuss the issue of real-world vs in-universe perspective with you. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop talking to me about it. Here are some more sources: Collider rankings feel clickbaity but the character is being discussed as a character, not an actor. Distractify Cinemablend Again, these aren't the best, and I wouldn't necessarily use them in the article. This is about whether secondary entities not connected to the show talk about the character. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cinemablend is listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S. Either way, it's a plot summary.

Distractify source is more about the actor's return to the show and only briefly mentions the character.

Collider listicle only briefly summarizes who the character is.

Again, you will need SIGCOV from a real world persective. Spinixster (chat!) 14:29, 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 List of Criminal Minds characters#Matt Simmons. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Simmons (Criminal Minds)

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

Most sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search 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 Criminal Minds characters#Matt Simmons. Spinixster (chat!) 09:36, 26 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!) 09:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This character seemingly has no reception. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:40, 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 redirect‎ to List of Criminal Minds characters#Derek Morgan. ^Complex/_Rational 18:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Morgan (Criminal Minds)

AfDs for this article:

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

The article has a lot of WP:CRUFT with no proof of notability, mostly primary references, and a quick Google search 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 Criminal Minds characters#Derek Morgan. Spinixster (chat!) 09:34, 26 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!) 09:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This time we have a Reception section, limited to the sentence "Morgan was included in TV Guide's list of "TV's Sexiest Crime Fighters"." If anyone thinks this is not the very definition of laughable, raise your hand. For me, well, this is an obvious fail of GNG in need of redirecting if not deletion (but since redirects are WP:CHEAP, let's be merciful...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Restore Redirect - This was just Redirected via an AFD consensus a couple of weeks ago, and then the article was reverted back to an article with absolutely no changes. This should not even be at AFD again - it should just be immediately reverted back to the redirect that was already decided on, and then protected to keep this from happening again. Rorshacma (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Redirect, as this could be considered a subtopic and just deleting it wouldn't be helpful. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 06:08, 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 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Africa Report

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

WP:ADMASQ for non notable periodical. Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE failed to find any useful sources. Current references are from the org itself, a one para "description' of the item, and a 404/server failure error. Puff piece. Note that the item is stated to have won the 'Diageo Africa Business Reporting Award', an award by a drinks manufacturer about which I can find no significant coverage, thus have concluded that it is a 'Marketing Award' for Diageo (to sell more drinks?), and does not confer notability. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Organizations, Business, Advertising, Companies, and Africa. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:33, 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 redirect‎ to List of Angel characters. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Groosalugg

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

99% plot summary, and a short section on "Concept and creation" consisting almost entirely of quotations. No analysis, no reception. My BEFORE shows few mentions in passing and some discussion of plotlines involving him, but nothing stricte about him. Suggest redirecting to the List of Angel characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 26 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Angel characters. I don't think that character needs his own page. He was only in 9 episodes and doesn't have much media coverage. Other characters where deleted, that were much more relavant to the series, like Lorne (76 episodes), Lilah Morgan (35 episodes) or Lindsey McDonald (19 episodes). He is surely the least relevant of the Angel characters with their own page. --Dynara23 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of coverage. Not enough for WP:SIGCOV. Would consider a redirect per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Angel characters per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:41, 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 redirect‎ to List of Criminal Minds characters#Aaron Hotchner. Star Mississippi 00:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Hotchner

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

The article has a lot of WP:CRUFT with no proof of notability. Sources are either episodes (primary) or secondary sources that are interviews or more about the actor, and a quick Google search 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 Criminal Minds characters#Aaron Hotchner. Spinixster (chat!) 09:32, 26 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!) 09:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Unreferenced WP:PLOTCRUFT, pure plot summary, nothing encyclopedic to see here. GNG fail. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Like many other TV character articles recently evaluated for deletion, this has a somewhat bloated fictional history section. Unlike those other articles, it also has a decent list of non-primary sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the 4 non-primary sources, all of them talk more about the actor more than the character or are interviews. I don't think it proves notability. Spinixster (chat!) 09:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Criminal Minds characters#Aaron Hotchner - The sources in the article and found upon searches are, outside of plot summaries of episodes the character appeared in, largely about the actor rather than on the fictional character he portrayed. Rorshacma (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. A lot of the coverage isn't really about the character, and the actor is a fine place to add the trivial mentions. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. I love the series but this is cruft. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 23:06, 4 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!} 23:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bagsar Samachar

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

Ephemeral publication. The article has three references. The first one (in the Historical Journal) is just an in-passing mention, giving the start and end date of the publication. The other two don't even seem to mention the magazine. Does not meet WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Being the first periodical published in the Bhojpuri language is historically significant enough to warrant encyclopedic inclusion. The periodical also appears to have changed names (or rather the script changed), so I am not confident the other sources "don't mention" the periodical. Given the language challenges involved I am uncertain that a proper WP:BEFORE search could be done by someone other than a language specialist in Bhojpuri and Devanagari. For this reason, I'm inclined to lean keep even without SIGCOV proved for certain.4meter4 (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Sources in article and BEFORE do not show WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 22:33, 10 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!} 23:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 20 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carnage Crew

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

No notable pro wrestling Stable. Besides WP:ROUTINE results or passing mentions, there is no in-deep coverage about them. [47] HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 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 no consensus‎. no consensus to delete, was gonna relist but gut feeling tells me it's probably not gonna change the consensus Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thala (film)

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

Fails GNG and NFILM. Sources in article are promos, mentions, listings, etc.; nothing that meets WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. BEFORE showed nothing. Article also exists at Draft:Thala (film), was rejected at AfC,[48] and then created in mainspace. Author has had multiple articles rejected at AfC, only to be created directly in mainspace. // Timothy :: talk 16:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: production that has received coverage (https://www.newindianexpress.com/good-news/2022/may/29/teen-kerala-film-awards-winner-helps-colony-move-further-away-from-infamous-past-2459207.html, https://m.timesofindia.com/city/thiruvananthapuram/this-young-award-winner-makes-her-family-proud/articleshow/91863709.cms or similar articles, that can be said significant considering the film's genre), various awards and screenings that are verifiable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the above is SIGCOV about the film. // Timothy :: talk 19:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned, insufficiently clearly, apparently, that I found that, considering it is a child actors film, this type of coverage of the film's production is significant in my view; the awards and screenings also are. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Godjo J — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs)

Comment: Author pblocked at ANI for disruptive editing.[49] // Timothy :: talk 16:36, 19 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} 08:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Award winning film, passes WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 00:06, 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 merge‎ to Halsted station (CTA Orange Line). While there is a great deal of support for Keeping this article, none of those advocating Keep have countered the two source analysis that state that the sources don't support GNG so I'm selecting a Merge closure to the most often mentioned target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halsted Street station (Heritage Corridor)

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

Currently zero in-depth coverage on this station, and searches did not turn up enough to meet WP:GNG. Was draftified in hopes of improvement, but returned to mainspace without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage, and the sources cited are either not RS or passing mentions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references are adequate, and the Chicago Tribune reference is more than a passing mention. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article's creator here) for the reasons Eastmain gave. Additionally, Pi.1415926535 recently expanded the article with improved and additional references. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Trib article consists of 3 sentences about the new station, hardly an in-depth piece. The other 4 are simple mentions. Not sure when one brief blurb amounted to significant enough coverage to pass GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I find some books at the library in an attempt to meet WP:GNG's criteria, would they count towards mainspace eligibility or not really? Because I would be happy to use them as sources, although it may be difficult to find any that are both independent and reliable. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – now appears sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Useddenim (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per reasons stated above. Many closed train stations similarly have limited information both on and off Wikipedia, but keeping them helps to improve them now and later on. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the closer, in light of all the !voters above actually ignoring the sourcing, and mostly the WP:OSE arguments, here's an assessment table.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.newspapers.com/article/chicago-tribune/132466247/	The source is major newspaper	The source is reputable published source	Brief 3 sentence blurb which discusses the station. Definitely not in-depth	✘ No
https://www.loc.gov/resource/g4104cm.g01790191103/?sp=59			Map showing it exists, but zero in-depth coverage	✘ No
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:April_1923_Illinois_Central_Suburban_Trains_West_timetable.pdf	Published by the rail line	Yes	No coverage, simply a listing	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC	Yes	Yes, a major newspaper	Just a brief mention	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC	Published by the rail system	Yes, a major newspaper	Just a brief mention in a table	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Southwest_Transit_Corridor_Project_Chica/Ddo3AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Halsted+Street+station%22+chicago&pg=RA8-PT59&printsec=frontcover	Published by city	no editorial oversight	In-depth	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Southwest_Transit_Corridor_Project_Chica/Ddo3AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Halsted+Street+station%22+chicago&pg=RA8-PT59&printsec=frontcover	Published by city	no editorial oversight, no peer review	Brief one-line mention	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Southwest_Transit_Corridor_Project_Chica/Ddo3AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Halsted+Street+station%22+chicago&pg=RA8-PT59&printsec=frontcover	Independently published	Lulu is a self-publishing site	Brief mention	✘ 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}}.

Redirect to Heritage Corridor#Stations. May or may not be notable (I'm a bit confused) but has anyone considered a WP:ATD so far? S5A-0043^Talk 12:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the sources presented above…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still voting keep for reasons above and currently researching the topic in order to preserve the page. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~::●Keep- I Found This, this, & this PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~I found this. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete: Based on the source table given, is not adequately covered to meet notability requirements. I can find scattered mentions of the station, but nothing I'd use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
most3 of the sources should be partial and not red (1,2,4) PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such thing as partial. The table automatically calculates based on input. I've added the 3 more non-notable references to the table.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Chicago Tribune(newspapers.com)	Major Newspaper	Major Newspaper	3 Scentences	✘ No
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.			Just a Map	✘ No
April 1923 Illinois Central Station...	Published by the Rail Line		Just a Listing	✘ No
Frank Lloyd Wright: His Life and His Architecture		Published: John Wiley & Sons, Jan 16, 1991	Breif Mention	✘ No
Southwest Transit Corridor Project, Chicago Environmental Impact Statement 1985		?	In Depth	✘ No
Report on the Engineering and Operating Features of the Chicago Transportation Problem Volume 1	Published by: McGraw Publishing	Published by: McGraw Publishing	One Line	✘ No
Outside the Rails: A Rail Route Guide from Chicago to La Plata, MO	?	Self Publishing Website	2 Full paragraphs	✘ No
Ridership Trends - Anual Report 2017	Published By Rail Line		~ Mentioned a Few Times	✘ 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}}.

- PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in my revert, none of the three sources you added refer to this station. Outside the Rails discusses Halsted Street station, Southwest Transit Corridor Project discusses Halsted station (CTA Orange Line), and Report on the Engineering refers to the Halsted cable car barn. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been searching for books relating to the Alton Railroad and the GM&O, as they would probably be our best bets. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

either way id does not pass GNG PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:36, 5 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!} 23:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet GNG requirements to my eyes. Secondary source coverage just isn't there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Halsted station (CTA Orange Line). The vast majority of stations that survived into the public ownership era easily pass GNG, but there's a handful like this one that probably don't. Merging or redirecting is best for almost any train station, since they're always likely search terms. The Orange Line station is directly across the street from where this station was, so it's an obvious target for the merge. (There's plenty of history to be written about the Orange Line station itself, so it wouldn't be UNDUE.) See Medford/Tufts station and Suffolk Downs station for similar situations where I've incorporated the history of predecessor stations into articles on rapid transit stations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose delete and the redirect suggested earlier. Torn between keep or merge to Halsted station (CTA Orange Line). If sourcing doesn't pass GNG then merge as an AtD as this station appears to be a predecessor to the current station. Slight problem is there's as much if not more material on this station as things stand than the merge target. Nevertheless, as User:Pi.1415926535 says there's expansion possibilities for that article. Rupples (talk) 21:02, 18 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. Star Mississippi 02:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elke Jeinsen

AfDs for this article:

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

This seems ONEEVENT at best. Bild is sensationalist tabloid and the rest of the sources that don't cover Trump are meh. The context of notability is Trump so it should be covered as a footnote there or in a jumbo article covering DJTs alleged infidelities. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Beauty pageants, Fashion, Germany, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Items in Bild, The Sun and what looks like a Swedish tabloid. Not seeing notability based on the lack of proper RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and California. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sent this back to Afc where some minor work was done to it, but it can't really disguise the lack of notabilty. As far as I can see there is not an indication of significance and the coverage, which is all the article and is very poor. Fail WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 21:27, 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 keep‎. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lugz

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

dubious notability. Can find virtually no coverage by reliable sources, seems to exist only to promote the subject FASTILY 07:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and New York. AllyD (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The WSJ piece is RS and not a passing mention. Reference 10 might be as well, I don't know about that publisher. So the brand has attracted some attention and coverage that isn't purely promotional. However, most of the sources cited are either non-RS (Wordpress) or trivial. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For those who are old enough to remember the 90's these things were a household-name-ubiquitous part of hip-hop and pop culture (at least Eminem thought so as does Complex which calls them an "iconic" brand), and there really shouldn't be a question about notability.

Personal testimony aside, the WSJ story and multiple others combine to meet SIRS. A quick Google News search (supposedly a prerequisite for this deletion discussion) shows that they're still an active and high visibility brand today with regular media coverage and shouldn't have been nominated. WilsonP NYC (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a pretty comprehensive chapter in International Directory of Company Histories about the parent company, Jack Schwartz Shoes, Inc.,[50] which also owns British Knights. Perhaps the two brands can redirect to a new article about the parent. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable with its high-profile collaborations with famous figures in music, sports, and entertainment. kind of cultural phenomenon. --Assirian cat (talk) 12:56, 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 delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 18:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fawn Rogers

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

dubious notability. Can find virtually no coverage by reliable sources, seems to exist only to promote the subject FASTILY 07:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Photography, and Oregon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding significant coverage or evidence that this artist is in any collections. The "Publications" section of the article is particularly puffy. It is basically a listing of press releases. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. promo cv. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 19:02, 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Khel

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

The article is completely unsourced and was formerly reliant on a single colonial-era source (WP:RAJ)as its primary reference. This article should be considered for deletion due to a lack of credible sources and failure to meet the general notability criteria WP:V. O chawal (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia. O chawal (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This source has several pages of information about a military conflict impacting the village where the Umar Khel live (the village is also named Umar Khel). The 2011 source also has brief coverage of a different military conflict involving the Umar Khel. This 2020 source lists them as an existing subdividsion of the Hotak Khel/Hassan Khel tribe and this 1983 source and this 2004 source list them as under the Nano Khel. The United States government geo located the tribe in this 1962 source, this 1922 source includes them, as does this 1914 source. The first source is really the only one with in-depth coverage, but I think that a verifiable people group is encyclopedic. Lastly I am fairly confident that significant coverage exists in J. A. Robinson (1978). Notes on Nomad Tribes of Eastern Afghanistan. Gosha-e-Adab. which is snippet view stated "Umar Khel . - 95 families which are nomadic and have no flocks or land , exist by trade between Kandahar and Dera Ismail Khan . They migrate with the Nasar..." That's all I could see but it appears there was more.4meter4 (talk) 16:21, 10 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!} 23:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 17 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!} 07:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick L. Evans

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

dubious notability. Can find virtually no coverage by reliable sources, seems to exist only to promote the subject FASTILY 07:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Poetry, Christianity, Florida, and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per a quick BEFORE search. If stuff exists offline or under a different search term, I can change my !vote. However, this looks like a case where no sourcing exists. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence of meaningful coverage in RS either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A spammy BIO sourced entirely to self-published sources. No reliable sources exist covering the subject. The article doesn't even make a plausible claim of notability and could even be speedied. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 00:28, 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) 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 01:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Vishal

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

Roles confined to brand ambassador and web-series, this Maldivian TikTok personality/actor is not notable per WP:NACTOR. The article is promotional and links to other articles by the same author of productions that have, at best (and being generous), dubious notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Websites, and Maldives. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Main roles in 2 notable web series, among other things. And WP:NACTOR says: "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (which includes web series).....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:28, 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!} 07:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pass in WP:NACTOR. look like notable Worldiswide (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NACTOR.ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:46, 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 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spycatcher (band)

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. Music is one of those areas where self-promoting wannabes routinely try to game our rules by falsely claiming to pass NMUSIC criteria that they don't really pass, so passing NMUSIC doesn't hinge on the claim nearly so much as it hinges on the sourcing that can or can't be shown to verify that the ciaim is true -- but while this makes claims to passing NMUSIC's radio airplay and touring criteria, it's referenced almost entirely to primary sources, like the band's own social networking profiles and the self-published websites of non-media companies directly affiliated with the claims, that are not support for notability at all -- the only attempt at citing media coverage just footnotes the name of a magazine that purportedly published content about the band once in a listicle, while failing to provide the date on which that listicle was purportedly published. But even if it can be recovered, it still takes more than just one blurb in one listicle to pass WP:GNG anyway.
As I don't have particularly good access to archived British media coverage from a decade ago, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to such resources can find enough improved sourcing to salvage it -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 12:53, 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!} 06:17, 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!} 07:11, 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 no consensus‎. Possibly leaning delete but this has been running for 2 weeks and there is no strong consensus to delete to justify a deletion at the moment. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K Muralikrishna

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

Movie director with no indication of notability. Of all sources cited, the subject received single passing mention in 3 of the sources, 2 passing mention in one while the others do mention them at all CrucialEditor (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CrucialEditor (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy choice, there are no sources discussing this person. Passing mentions aren't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as director of various rather notable films (3 at least of his films being considered notable, as having a WP page and having received some coverage).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:28, 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!} 06:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets the WP:DIRECTOR criteria with his direction in multiple notable films. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. What we contributors need to understand and accept is that notability is not inherited. Almost all sourcing one can dig up is about the films; not the director himself. It;s indicative of desperation when some of the sources already cited, such as this or this, do not even mention Muralikrishna! A new, young director trying the fast lane. -The Gnome (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 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 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!} 05:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green Enterprise Initiative

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Their website, [51], is dead and was last archived on January 2016. Actually, I have to go back to 2014 to find a website not entirely broken, although wayback machine seems to of not properly archived the website rendering the authors used: [52]

While notability is not temporary, I cannot find any sources (primary or secondary) about the organisation. It is possible that most or all of their work was written in Chinese, but I could not find anything on a Baidu search either. Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no refs on the page for many years, nothing else I can find. I'm doubting that this was ever notable. JMWt (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 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 keep‎. I think we're done here: serious SNOW. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yaroslav Hunka

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Yaroslav Hunka

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

WP:1E. This man is famous as of yesterday for one event. Not notable. cagliost (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. It is preferable that the page be renamed the "Yaroslav Hunka Affair" or "Yaroslav Hunka Controversy" and go into detail on the whole incident instead as it affects more than just Mr. Hunka. Factchecker72946482 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

*Keep. Removing this summary from Wikipedia will remove one of the most detailed summaries about this Nazi from the internet, which will aid conspiracy theorists and the like. Having a detailed summary (including that he continued to be an activist for officers like himself in later life) is important to the understanding of a major political scandal surrounding the most important war of the twenties.Jamesjansson (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, This article is defamatory harrassment and it infringes on the privacy of mr. Hunka.23.236.83.249 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Single person - perhaps true. But, he is a classic example of washing up the Ukrainian/SS-Galizien history of genocide and crimes against the humanity. Shall be kept in place. 157.231.243.194 (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Making the atrocities of the Nazis is paramount to the education of all generations and the prevention of such horrors happening again - I hope. Not a perfect model, but one that can help. 2607:FEA8:E2C0:61E0:B0C5:22CC:2429:37FF (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename and rewrite, as the defined subject is not a notable individual. —Michael Z. 13:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:*The individual is notable as he and his attendance at the Canadian parliament and the praise given him by the Canadian house speaker, makes him notable. his presence in Canada along with others from Division or the SS 14th Waffen Division is also notable and worthy of mention in this article as well. 208.123.202.108 (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC) :*This assertion is false. Hunka is a Nazi SS officer that has been the subject of global news. If he didn't want to be known, he should have kept a low profile. 2604:3D09:147F:F910:19F5:E9C8:F704:754F (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: non-extended-confirmed users are not permitted to edit this project discussion per WP:GS/RUSUKR. —Michael Z. 13:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I haven't delved deep into Ukrainian-language sources but there's evidence that he has been active in Waffen-SS veteran's circles post-war and information that makes him more notable beyond a single event could be find. But even if there isn't, I think the controversy surrounding his summon to Parliament is receiving such a great deal of attention that's going to be known for a long time that it's notable. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 14:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Could not agree more. This was an historical event. Gary 7vn (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep per @MAINEiac4434 Killuminator (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to "Yaroslav Hunka affair" ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make the article about the incident and not Hunka himself GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed El819 (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed TheUnabashedUkrainian (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Ukraine, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move the article as per suggestions above, and have it focus on the incident first and Hunka second, as opposed the other way around. Hunka is primarily covered because of this incident.Cortador (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and thus WP:NOTNEWS. This person warrants no notability by themselves, is in the media for a brief instant, then is gone. 14.2.192.61 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article looks fine to me, the incident has made Hunka a major topic. Maybe a page about the incident itself would be better. LilJohnnyWimple (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is no real problem with it. Jingiby (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering that due to the controversy more of the subject's history are being bought to light and how it has become a scandal in the Canadian politics of recent time. Toadboy123 (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Deletion the article after the person become scandalous compromises Wikipedia's neutrality. 37.186.45.57 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

The article was not created until the scandal. That's why cagliost nominated referring to WP:1E. glman (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I also agree that the article should be named "Yaroslav Hunka affair".--Mhorg (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would the retitle be to "Yaroslav Hunka affair". Is that phrasing used in any sources? I feel like it's a very vague title. glman (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is international news coverage and Poland is now seeking his extradition as a war criminal. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*:Agreed. 170.63.193.132 (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, wide-spread international coverage of the subject Crackjack (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect either to the "Hunka affair" which doesn't yet exist, or to the article about the current session of Parliament. He's not notable, the kerfuffle around it is. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not opposed to moving the article to cover the scandal, or even making it part of a larger article highlighting Zelenskyy's trip to Canada.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Maybe rename it to "Yaroslav Hunka scandal" or "Yaroslav Hunka controversy"? Sidney.Cortez (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This subject meets WP:GNG as it stands through the sources provided in the article (although I'm open to a discussion of a title change in the talk section here). A note to the closer, this deletion discussion has been discussed off wiki on various social media platforms, such as [[53]]. User:Let'srun 15:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what outside discussion has to do with this. WP:BLACKMAIL is not a good argument. glman (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm in favor of keeping the article, the last thing we should be doing is making our decisions based on what far-right provocateurs think. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has received international notoriety and coverage. Hunka is now a public figure. Evans1982 (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC) ----[reply]

Redirect to a new page on the event, or on the trip to Canada. I agree with the nominator, policy WP:1E applies. However, the event seems notable. I'm not sure we've shown that it's lasting effects, so WP:NOTNEWS may apply. Could we roll it into an article about the visit as a whole? At least until we have evidence it's an event with sustained effects? Lots of arguments in the comments that to not reference any Wikipedia policy. glman (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. While the recent incident has certainly put the spotlight on him, he has a well-documented history and as apparently had a leadership role among the Nazi-collaborator Ukrainian veterans in Canada. Given the integral role that he's played in this national and international event, his bio is deserving of inclusion. Note that, following this event, Poland may seek his extradition on war crimes charges. [54] -2003:CA:8707:C60:1E85:2D36:7F42:DCF4 (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:I went to several news sites trying to figure out how easy his involvement with the SS was. I found it in this article. I would be very concerned about this article being deleted. While I agree that he has achieved national notoriety for the one event, is irrelevant. It appears that a very superficial vetting of this person would find concerns. Don't hide this information. 96.30.130.38 (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is the subject of a notable international incident and Canadian political scandal. This article should be kept, either as one about him or about the affair. DrOwl19 (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the incident and the person has now made international news and can be cited on multiple reliable sources. Anvib (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The incident is notable at least as part of Rota's biography, but the person is not necessarily notable. There were more notable members of SS Galizien living in Canada and the US.
Also, it's a curious cultural phenomenon: Canada accepted many of the SS Galizien veterans in the aftermath of WWII, but the headlines appear only 70 years later. --Amakuha (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. "Honorary Citizen" of a Ukrainian town and a philanthropist. So narrowly notable. --Amakuha (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the 1st and to date only Nazi SS officer honoured in Canada's Parliament, during a high profile visit by the Ukrainian PM during the war with Russia, and the subject of international news coverage- he is very notable. --TheTruthiness (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename/Merge. Deletion of this article would be politically motivated in my view. I would like this to be kept or renamed/merged into something like the "Hunka Affair" etc. This is a major scandal in Canada and has had international ramifications now that it appears that Poland is seeking this individual's extradition. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move. This individual is only notable for one event, and as per WP:1E, the general rule is to cover the event, and not the person. If anything, this should be covered under an article about the event.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"only notable for one event". That is not exactly true, it appears he has been in the media before at least in Canada; there are other sources from 2022 which noted his presence at protests against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Anvib (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the subject may not have been very notable on his own for his actions during the war, the politization of him in recent times has definitely made him notable enough to keep. At the very most, this article should be renamed/recentered around the events that took place in Canada and not in Europe. EytanMelech (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though renaming or moving to a “Hunka controversy “ article would be acceptable. Both the man and the controversy over his being honored in the Canadian Parliament are notable. His individual case, which may extend to war crimes charges and trial, and the history of the SS Galizien division as a whole are complicated and nuanced. A rational, sourced article that can help shed light on them is of significant value. Brons (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Apologies for tapping the wrong level of reply 18:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Brons (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

*Keep or Rename. It's especially become notable now with the Speaker resigning as a result of the event. Either move to new article or keep the article as is. :Emkut7 (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: It is important not to delete history, especially a chapter as pertinent as this101.78.67.231 (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with above, deleting this article is trying to sweep the event under the rug as a political move. People deserve to know who was honoured by the Canadian parliament. There are plenty of secondary sources even without the controversy to substantiate Hunka's notability. Deathying (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep but note how many people visit the page. If the visit count is sufficient, then retain longer term as important. User:meteorquake — Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Keep per the comments of User:GLORIOUSEXISTENCE. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Managed to single handedly destroy the political career of the canadian speaker. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Wikipedia has plenty of articles about people who are known for one or few things - someone which is at the heart of a national/international political "incident" figures relatively high-up in the "encyclopaedia-worthy" list. Whilst Mr Hunka may have become famous for the incident, it does not appear as if that is his only history-worthy fact, given that by definition there may well be citeable research in the near future into his actual contribution to the war/his biography between the war and showing up in the Canadian parliament. Peter Kelford (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - BLP1E doesn't apply for the following reasons:

Hunka was the central figure in the event, rather than being only incidentally involved.
The controversy occurred in large part due to Hunka's overall biography and personal history, rather than some specific action he took during his visit to the Canadian Parliament.
The reporting on Hunka in many cases covers his entire life as relevant to the central controversy rather than merely for color. Many journalists have focused specifically on Hunka's past and thus his life story has now become notable, even if he only originally gained widespread public attention due to his Canadian Parliament appearance.
Hunka has been profiled as an individual in both Canadian and international media.
Hunka has become involved in other events beyond his initial appearance at the Canadian Parliament. The Polish government has publicly announced that it is investigating him and may seek to extradite him to Poland. This constitutes another event in which Hunka has been implicated and of relevance to this article.

Accordingly, the article should be kept and not moved to another name referring only to a single incident. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Anthony Rota is the central figure. 2. seems to contradict your 1 if the subject’s actions at the event were not central. He’s in the news because the speaker acknowledged him; not because he was a person present at the event, and not because he’s one of the one of the Canadian immigrants who’d been members of the Galicia Division. 3. The biography seems to be based on one blog post by the subject, reporting about the blog post, and incidental mentions elsewhere. 4. Here’s the crux: is there any SIGCOV from before the current event? 5. One Polish minister tweeted. I’m not aware that the Polish government announced anything. —Michael Z. 02:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per D. Benjamin Miller. Daask (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale stated above. --WikiLinuz (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP without question. Although I'm sure scrubbing all information about this guy's crimes against humanity from the internet would be advantageous to the Canadian government and the Kiev junta, we cannot cover up information about war criminals nor people actively involved in contemporary news, such as his involvement in Canadian events and the extraction to Poland he is currently facing. This is a very clear attempt at censorship of the flow of inconvenient information and Wikipedia has a moral duty to not obfuscate current events or cover up history. 2601:602:8B80:7520:51CB:DA4F:C3FF:5553 (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable public figure. — Omegatron (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article looks good and its extremely relevant. I've seen worst article that aren't being nominated for deletion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Member of the SS that somehow managed to immigrate to Canada who is still living in 2023, and led to the resignation of the Speaker of the House of Canada. That seems to be at least three items that makes him noteworthy. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many former members of the Wehrmacht and SS emigrated to Western countries like Canada, that part is not at all noteworthy. Inviting one of them into a democratic institution is though Anvib (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, the number of former Wehrmacht and SS who successfully immigrated to the US is a pretty quantifiable number. The John Demjanjuk case was noteable even before he was old. That makes at least three reasons he is noteworthy: 1) SS to the West 2) Lived to old age and 3) Canadian scandal. Jjazz76 (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Is that you, Kaurine Gould? She literally tried to do a motion to remove multimedia about the incident. https://www.kossyderrickent.com/2023/09/photo-karina-gould-and-anthony-rota.html?m=1 109.252.170.135 (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Important individual especially considering the impact he caused. Durangoose (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Relevant and necessary, especially when the governments trying to pretend it didnt happen, having a bank of sources like this is important. 2607:FEA8:BADF:7450:BC7F:E811:1727:F546 (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Keep The fact that the speaker resigned over the affair makes it noteworthy. That said, I would not be opposed to moving the page to focus on the incident rather than the person.--Tulzscha (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - considering the impact this incident has caused he warrants notability I'd argue Claire 26 (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heap on the Keep The man caused the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada to resign and it might develop into something even bigger if Poland extradites him and tries him for war crimes. ❤History Theorist❤ 23:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. He is not any more notable than any other SS officer. What is notable is the controversy surrounding, and thus I think this should be an event page rather than biography. It would be more informative to the average person looking this up to have a box on the impact of his being applauded in Parliament, result, date of this happening and so on. Any information about him specifically should be framed as secondary, as the details of his deeds are not as pertinent information. Focusing too much on the deeds of any given SS officer on Wikipedia is liable to glorification when framed out of context of consequences (which are why people are searching for this information). Keeping this as a biography page sets a precedent to continue to have articles for every former SS officer who ends up commended; whether in Canadian Parlament or through something like Operation Paperclip. People years from now who will not have the fallout of this fresh in their memory may have a distorted view of what happened if it is framed as an individual Nazi who received a standing ovation on his own merit, having to scroll down sections in order to find out that the Speaker in the House Of Commons resigned after he learned what he had done, or that numerous MPs spoke out against this after the fact in disbelief that the Speaker would have done this, citing having been misled. It matters to know that this was not accepted, and it had consequences, as the primary leading information in this article, above the individual Nazi. He could have been any Nazi that the Speaker befriended. Most of the information can remain the same, but there is no reason this should be a biography page specifically. He does not have a page because he himself was notable. We do not have pages for Holocaust survivors who have been mentioned in Parliament. Again, he is not notable on his own without this incident. (As much as I am certain many of us wish his actions were an outlier, and thus notable.) It should be a page categorized as a major incident or event in ongoing Canadian history. Averagecryptid (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He does need to be known, especially in light of what happened in Canada because of their shortsightedness. Thank you. Openskye (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment problematic phrasing; Rota and his office were shortsighted, not the entire country of Canada. Rowing007 (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to an article about the event itself per BLP1E and NOTNEWS. I will note that the vast majority of replies here do not cite any policy as a basis, simply that he "needs" to have an article because of said event, which is notable but apparently lacks a page of its own. Additionally, I agree with @Mzajac that per GS/RUSUKR it is not particularly constructive to have many IP editors giving inputs, particularly as, at risk of breaching AGF, I will say at least a handful of these votes do not seem to be particularly interested in making arguments based on policy and guidelines.

Mupper-san (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the talk page: [55]. Do defamatory comments violating BLP need to have the history wiped? —Michael Z. 03:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mzajac How does one defame a Nazi? From the talk you linked, the only comment of concern is an IP calling the subject POS. And that is minor incivility as per WP:CRD#RD2 — hako9 (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and potential move to "Yaroslav Hunka affair". This person has now received international news coverage and is the central figure surrounding why the Canadian Speaker of the House has resigned. I think it's fair to say that meets notability guidelines. XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not only is this person notable for having been celebrated in the Canadian parliament, despite apparent ties to Nazi Germany, but it is very very strange for this article to be proposed for deletion immediately after the event. Jkp1187 (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - typically I'd vote against this, however, there seems to be enough cited material to substantiate an article. Oppose move to dedicated article about the wider event though I can understand the WP:BLP1E concerns, there is actually sourcing prior to the events of September 2023, with one even going back as far back as March 2011, and two from last year, meaning that I think this barely passes the threshold for being a standalone biographical article. — Knightoftheswords 01:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2011 source is a primary source (Hunka's letter, published in a blog). There is only one 2022 source: a short mention of Hunka participating in a rally in support of Ukraine. All other sources are after 23 September 2023. So, definitely, a WP:BLP1E. --Amakuha (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This indivdual pretty much created a huge political scandal on the federal level in Canada. He is noticeable in the public and among concerned citizens of a certain country called Canada and he is an exceptionally noticeable individual in the history of Canada's Westminster parliamentary system despite not being an MP or a parliamentary officer. This incident shouldn't go unnoticed. So, keep. Komitsuki (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - maybe rename the article to refer to the political scandal it has wrought instead of just him, but the article itself is clearly notable. Is this even a serious question? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Usually I'd vote delete under, WP:BLP1E, but causing a speaker of a national parliament to resign and then potentially getting extradited for WWII war crimes is pretty exceptional. Of the three BLP1E criteria, he probably fails two of them. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article subject is, broadly construed, involved in the ongoing war. So, all votes and comments by non-extended confirmed users should be stuck as null and void per WP:GS/RUSUKR --StellarHalo (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename and Rewrite This article falls short of a few guidelines. Such as the guidance in WP:1E avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. and The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. It also falls short of WP:SUSTAINED - the significant coverage of the topic of the article in secondary sources has just come from a span of a few days. I would consider this whole controversy to amount to a single event. --Tristario (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:1E. If this is going to be kept, it would need to be rewritten to focus on the one event rather than the person. However, as an event, the jury is still out on whether or not it will clear WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WP:LASTING. --StellarHalo (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... the fact that the speaker of the Canadian House of Commons resigned over this satisfies WP:LASTING. I don't think the jury is out on that. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though notable for one event, the event is having a major impact on Canadian politics. Possibly move/rewrite to focus on said event, but it nonetheless passes WP:GNG. Lucksash (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename. Notable because of his political impact. The article could be rewritten and renamed to focus on the controversy as a whole but I think there's enough material about him to have a personal article. Johndavies837 (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: cagliost says it's "Not notable" and yet as I write this, the article has had 267,150 pageviews since it was created 2 days ago. The number of pageviews indicates that it is in fact notable. selfworm^Talk) 05:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep Current discussion is unlikely to succeed, and would probably benefit from being a discussion on a potential move rather than a deletion. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree. cagliost (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Also agree. I would withdraw/close this, and then consider whether it should be left as a BLP or moved to the Yaroslav Hunka affair. Might wait a week or so before that to see if there are more developments that might influence that discussion (e.g. more SIGCOV on him as a person vs. him in the event). Aszx5000 (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a very well written and well-sourced article about a person of some notability, not just due to recent events, but also of significant historical importance. Poyani (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The site should be moved to another name, i.e. "Yaroslav Hunka controversy," or another one that puts the emphasis on compromising the Canadian parliament. Hunka himself is a background actor in this case; during the war he was one of thousands of soldiers in the division, and after the war he was one of many exile activists.Marcelus (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep. He has achieved world-wide notoriety. The rumored forthcoming Polish extradition for war crimes is the cherry on top. — The Anome (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RUMOR, so far all we have is a tweet from the Polish education minister. cagliost (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move High scale political event which easily passes GNG. AFD is the wrong avenue for this.★Trekker (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major ongoing Canadian political scandal which might be the worst in 21st century.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep None of the three required WP:BLP1E criteria apply: 1. multiple events (Nazi past, parliamentary standing ovation in the presence of Zelenskyy, resignation of the speaker of Parliament in Canada as a result of his appearance); 2. unlikely to remain low profile given the possible extradition to Poland and trial for war crimes; 3. Hunka's role in a Nazi military unit appears to be well documented (though his possible role in war crimes remains speculative). Meets WP:GNG based on wide international coverage and political significance in several different countries (Canada, Ukraine, Poland). Boud (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per D. Benjamin Miller above and do not move to Yaroslav Hunka affair or other page, because of the Poland extradition request and other followup events that may occur. Dan Carkner (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL Don't consider unsourced events that may possibly occur in the future. cagliost (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - +1 to WP:CRYSTAL. The controversial Polish politician, who "took steps for extradition", said that he only asked Polish historians to check whether Hunka is known to have commited crimes. This is far away from an actual extradition request. --Amakuha (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move - Canadian and international scandal. The Canadian Speaker of the House of Commons resigned as a result and Russia is using this as a propaganda victory for its war against the Ukraine. What's more, the article is well-sourced and easily meets WP:GNG. For editors arguing WP:1E, the solution is to simply move the article to Yaroslav Hunka scandal, Yaroslav Hunka controversy, Yaroslav Hunka affair or something similar. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not move because he absolutely qualifies for WP:GNG and even WP:1E doesn't seem to apply, since he's notable for participation in at least two major events, as the article makes clear. "Notable is not a synonym for famous", and his status as a living former member of the SS and the route he took to Canadian residency is a notable and important part of history, regardless of any potential or theoretical extradition requests related to that participation. Combine that with the more recent events he's involved in this article should definitely be kept. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "route he took to Canadian residency" – What are you reffering to? There were many veterans of his unit living in Canada. It's no secret. See Deschênes Commission, which found it "not guilty of collective war crimes". --Amakuha (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:HadesTTW.——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race}_{(talk・contribs)} 13:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename The subject of this article is notable and covered by many secondary sources. I am not opposed to changing the name of the article so it becomes an event rather than a biography. Waters.Justin (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move per User:A Quest For Knowledge. The event itself is notable enough to warrant its own article, regardless of Hunka's notability. The proposed titles are good, but potentially something more verbose like Canadian Parliament Nazi ovation scandal. eduardog3000 (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a bit too verbose :) Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but re-title. The scandal is notable. Srnec (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As highlighted above, BLP1E does not count here. It seems to be snowing here, so any scope for a speedy keep or even a withdrawal of the nom? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:1E doesn't mean that you don't have an article on the event. It only means that you don't necessarily have one article for the event, and one article for people involved in it. This article is clearly notable, regardless of what the title is. Therefore, keep. As for the title, I don't think it needs an suffix, further context can be added where appropriate within references to him (eg the guy who quit because of it). Either way, it's not the point of an AFD. Keep. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Objectively fits all of the criteria of a BLP. NPOV? Check. NOR? Check. Verifiability? Check. And, if the extradition request goes anywhere, there will be even more content to add and secondary sources to cite. --Panian513 21:42, 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!} 04:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ace duraflo

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable product. GraziePrego (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It also reads like an advertisement. Moonreach (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete typical promo piece Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:03, 5 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!} 05:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid resolution therapy

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG, and WP:FRINGE is also relevant in giving this subject more notability than it deserves. Google scholar, books, news search turns up nothing. I encounter "accelerated resolution therapy" and "rapid transformation therapy" too, though. These all seem to be just marketing buzzwords, I cannot see a single news article or peer reviewed study or university endorsement/publicity. The only two sources which I could find to specifically refer to the term which wasn't on a therapist's personal website, was:

- [56] Which has a link to J Connelley's website (which is flagged as phising by my ISP so I'm not going to check it). The article seems to ramble about a lot of topics, it is not peer reviewed, and writes as though RRT is a cure-all.

- [57]. This one puts RRT in the same sentence as "tapas acupressure technique, emotional freedom technique, thought field therapy, body psychotherapy, and biodynamic massage". Sure looks like psuedoscience to me, and I cannot make out anything substantive about RRT in this article other than the author likes it, and that it can supposedly treat "anxiety, panic attacks, PTSD, sexual trauma, childhood trauma, sexual violence, guilt and shame, social anxiety, rage and resentment, insomnia, addiction, and phobias and fears". Darcyisverycute (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There might be enough coverage to keep the article but probably only in stub form with most of the content removed. I think it should really only state who created it, the intended use, and the lack of studies to confirm its efficacy. There are some references and books on Google Scholar and ProQuest including https://www.proquest.com/docview/1418171748/17C57E2356AB44A8PQ/19 to support inclusion however. - Indefensible (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, that source you provided is paywalled and I could not find a safe alternative download for the article. It does not mention RRT in the first few paragraphs of the visible free preview. It is also a magazine article, which are generally not subject to academic review. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:27, 21 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} 05:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is quite the mess. It does not seem to be notable, and it has a promotional feel; further, the name RRT is trademarked; and the topic is as nom indicates close to fringe medicine. The sourcing is poor, and worse than it looks:
1 is RRT's founder Connelly's page on Psychology Today, so it is not a reliable independent source.
2 is about "inspiring stories". I found a URL for it and the text does not mention "Rapid resolution therapy". If the claim is only the preceding sentence then it is just off-topic; if it's the preceding two sentences (of the lead) then it fails verification.
3 is RRT's founder Connelly's book on RRT, published by "Rapid Resolution Therapy" so it is not a reliable independent source.
4 is about approaches in general, not RRT, so it's off-topic.
5 does not mention RRT, but the paragraph it claims to support does, so it fails verification.
6 failed to load, appears to be a dead link. Its title is on PTSD so the comment on 7 and 8 below probably applies.
7 and 8 do not contain the words "rapid" or "resolution". The entire paragraph they support is off-topic, on PTSD not RRT.
9 is Elsevier's Scopus welcome panel requiring a login, no use for anything.
10 is just a Google Scholar search, not a valid citation.

It appears therefore that the article as written is entirely without reliable sources. The items retrieved on Google appear to be purely commercial. The items retrieved on Google Scholar are not much better, with "helpful tips for counselors", personal statements, and woo-woo articles such as Bowles ("For survival, humans need safety. Without safety, the thriving brain does not work to its full potential.") There is no sign of a systematic review as required by WP:MEDRS.

We should DELETE this article as non-notable, probably fringe, and making unverifiable medical claims. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:57, 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Martin

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a record producer, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. There are statements here that would be valid notability claims if they were sourced properly, but the article says absolutely nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability -- however, seven of the nine footnotes are simple directory entries that are not support for notability at all, one more just tangentially verifies a fact while completely failing to mention the subject's name at all in conjunction with it, and the strongest source of all is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a very short blurb, which isn't enough coverage to singlehandedly vault him over WP:GNG all by itself.
So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something better than this, but nothing here clinches his inclusion without better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to vote to KEEP. I did a couple of edits in the past and have done more recently. I always intended to tidy it up and improve it but as it is with many of us, we have other things on the go. Sometimes a deletion nomination encourages others to get in and do some work as I have and another editor who may be just starting out by the look of things. OK, I've done some more edits recently. In voting to keep, I can say that he is notable for his film and television work, musical supervisor for The Jigsaw Man, see TCM link, and then there's Return of the Saint see Soundtrack collector link, and Space 1999, info at The Catacombs, see link here and more. A prolific music producer with a national top 20 hit for Guy Darrell and other successes. See below,
* 1960s British Beat Music Producers & Labels - Discographies - CBS Records - U.K. and European Singles Discography (1965-1969), at least 46 CBS singles produced by Irving Martin
* Discogs - 160 Credits. There's more that I could add. Karl Twist (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of those links are reliable or notability-building sources. Notability doesn't vest in using primary sources to verify facts, and can be established only by showing that he has received independent third party coverage and analysis about said facts in media. That is, notability isn't established by sourcing his credits to discogs.com, TCM, Soundtrack Collector, MusicBrainz, IMDb or Spotify directory entries — it requires journalists and music critics to be writing newspaper or magazine articles and/or books about him and his work. Notability is not "did stuff", it's "had independent analytical attention paid to the things he did in real media". Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin. If by some chance the consensus leans towards a deletion, could we please look at redirecting this page rather than deleting it? This would preserve the history. In addition to / through his prolific work as a producer, Irving Martin has worked extensively with both Brian Dee and Des Champ as well as worked on various music library recordings. Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 10:28, 17 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!} 17:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to post at 15:54, 16 September 2023. The links I gave here weren't to prove notability. I just wanted to show the body of Martin's work. When you nominated the article for deletion on See: Revision as of 13:44, 11 September 2023 & (saved example), I could understand this as the references were poor back then. Since then I have done a fair bit of work on it myself, and prior to your response at 15:54, 16 September 2023, it looked like this at Revision as of 13:32, 16 September 2023 & (saved example).
The majority of the references now are relaible with about 14 from music trade (Music news) magazines. There are only about 2 or 3 from Discogs and a couple from MusicBrainz. The 1960s British Beat Music Producers & Labels - Discographies catalogues are I believe from music trade reports. I am confident by doing the reverse, I can find release references and reviews. From now on I will do my best to track down the music trade references for any additional releases. Keep in mind that the British Beat Music Producers & Labels catalogue caters to CBS releases. Martin produced for other labels as well. The majority of the others are Pye, Decca, Deram and Fontana. Martin's greatest production success was probably the Guy Darrell single, "I've Been Hurt" (a Top 20 hit). But Martin also had chart success with the Sounds of Glory album by The London Philharmonic Choir which spent ten weeks in the chart and was a Top Ten selling album. It actually charted again in January 1977, for just one week getting in at no. 50. He also had a degree of success with the group Sheer Elegance and the single he co-wrote, "Dance the Night Away", which while not a national chart hit, it was a radio hit and performed on Top of the Pops. With the mainstream television shows, Return of the Saint, The Sweeney, Space 1999 and The Jigsaw Man, composing and producing music for them. Well, there's a lot here. The part that is unsourced and is "Résumé-like" as you said is the only part that is unreferenced bar a small section at the end. Since taking up this cause after you nominated it for deletion, I was very surprised, and nothing short of amazed at the volume of Martin's work and who he has worked with. Karl Twist (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSICBIO#C10 for Return of the Saint theme song, and this is not the only claim to notability, meets WP:NCREATIVE.3 for a variety of recordings including I've Been Hurt and Sounds of Glory. Meets WP:MUSICBIO#C8 for winning a GMA Dove Award in 1979, the highest award for Gospel music. —siro χ o 06:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the available sources would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:38, 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!} 02:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Koudis

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO. No reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Tails Wx 17:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Australia, and New York. Tails Wx 17:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The page has the potential to meet GNG (given the subject is a photographer with 20+ years experience and this page seems pretty dated with little work since its creation in 2005--authored by the subject himself) but presently I don't see any WP:RSs. Cabrils (talk) 02:20, 20 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} 05:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cabrils. Appears to have been a promotional WP:AUTOBIO created during the earlier days of Wikipedia that has skated by for years despite not meeting notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:26, 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 no consensus‎. Numerically, there are more editors arguing to Keep this article but those advocating Deletion have, I believe, done their due diligence reviewing sources that were available to view and I don't want to discount their opinions. And those arguing Keep are relying on off-line sources that not all editors took the time to assess or that weren't always available for review.

For those editors who don't believe the subject warrants a standalone article and bring this article back to AFD in the future, I'd follow this nominator's recommendation and suggest a Merge or Redirect rather than a straight Deletion as this character clearly has editors willing to go to great lengths to ensure their continued presence on the project on some level. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Cunningham

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

"a fictional character from the British Channel 4 soap opera Hollyoaks". Very poorly referenced plot summary that fails WP:GNG. No reception, just said plot summary in 'storylines' seciton, then a few remarks by actors from the show about that character in 'development' section that mostly deal not with the character but with relationships between actors in the show. Current sources are two media articles that mention the character in passing (failing WP:SIGCOV) and my BEFORE yielded nothing better. Per WP:SOFTDELETE, we can consider redirecting to the List of Hollyoaks characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, Television, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:BEFORE shows only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, and this article doesn't pass the threshold for WP:SIGCOV. Would also support a redirect per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has SIGCOV in sources such as here and here. – Meena • 12:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are low quality plot summaries. Where's the analysis? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the development and reception section shows notability and the sources show SIGCOV. The development is not plot, it talks about the development of the character and the actor's views of the storylines and characters, which is significant. Additionally, the storyline section does not need to source per the storyline guidelines at WP:SOAPS. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject does not get to overrule community consensus such as WP:V. Unreferenced plot summaries can be removed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, plots and storyline sections do not need to be sourced. We can help source it but this is currently not an issue. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Strong keep due to the amount of sources added that demonstrate clear notability and SIGCOV through sources covering the character in depth. The development section is now really detailed and extensive (and fully sourced of course) and show the real life information relating to the character. The reception has also been improved and further illustrates the notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Helen and all the recent AFDs concerning Hollyoaks characters, were regular characters on television around five times a week. The show was broadcast in multiple countries when Helen was featured. The show had more than 3M viewers when Helen was featured. This is likely to generate sources, but linkrot and the character not being on-screen for nearly 20 years makes it difficult because you have to go back and find the sources. Helen and the other articles just need a little work, researching and sources adding. I feel obliged to keep adding sources rather than enjoy working on the project.Rain the 1 20:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Hollyoaks characters (1997)#Helen Cunningham. It's hard to decide the notability of fictional elements, especially for a character who appeared in a soap opera. Through a normal Google search I only found articles about the show itself or some WP:CRUFTy trivia or plot summary, and Google Scholar gives limited results. Perhaps someone with access to reliable British newspapers can help find sources that talk about the character in a way that SIGCOV is met, but for now, I'm towards redirecting the article until sources are found to restore it. If sources are found, please let us know here. Spinixster (chat!) 14:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Those advocating Keep need to demonstrate SIGCOV, not mere passing mentions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the sources Added by Meena, Raintheone and JuneGloom07 show clear SIGCOV. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC) Pinging @Spinixster: as you asked to be pinged if sources were added. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot access the offline sources, however, the sources that are on the article right now does not prove notability to the character.
- The first Free Library source is an interview and only briefly mentions Helen.
- Same with the second Free Library source.
- Digital Spy source only briefly mentions about how the show pays tribute to the character in an episode.
- Fourth Free Library source only briefly mentions that Mr. C and Helen died in a car crash.
- Book source would technically be primary because it is co-written by the show's creator and it's a companion book. I cannot access this source, however, but I just want to make it clear.
Do note that SIGCOV means addresses the topic directly and in detail, and no sources listed here so far address the character directly and in detail. WP:FICT also says Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details. Spinixster (chat!) 01:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the offline one (as in that's why I said the ones that have been added...), as they discuss the character in depth. I know you cannot access them, but showing good faith for them would be appreciated as this character was popular and on air back when the internet was not used as much, so the sources relating to her are mainly offline. Also, those sources do discuss the character in detail regarding the real life context, which I specifically wrote about in my comments above. I would like to ping @Raintheone: as they can tell you more about the sources that show SIGCOV. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Offline materials can be scared and shared, on file sharing platforms for example. This may fall under fair use if it is just for the purpose of this discussion, and sharing is set to private (just for folks with the link). If I see SIGCOV myself I would even withdraw the nomination myself. Please ping me if any materials are shared with me. I could also accept them by email. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Raintheone:, are you able to do this? No worries if not, but I wanted to ping you DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:09, 6 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! 10:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (1997) per User:Spinixster. I think if there is not enough material for the article to pass SIGCOV guidelines and standalone, then merging the sourced content to the list is the best course of action. And this is probably not the best place, but I wish these articles weren't taken straight to AfD. It's like all the other steps to resolve the state of the article is skipped over. There never seems to be a real attempt to search for sources, or hold a discussion about it with either the original creator (if possible) or WP:SOAPS editors. The PROD process also seems to get forgotten about, but might encourage editors to work on the article more than an AfD. I don't know... - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda leaning towards keep because of the work put in by User:Raintheone. I think it passes WP:GNG. - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Can everyone who has taken part in the discussion so far please revisit this. Compare the article to the day it was nominated ([58]) to now ([59])? I have tried to improve the article since it was my responsibility wanting it to be kept. I understand there are primary sources such as the show's official website, used to include information about Helen's characterisation. There are offline/AGF sources that meet SIGCOV discussing her storylines, including interviews with cast members. I have added reception which mention opinion about Helen. Sorry I delayed any significant improvement until today - I had hoped someone else would have taken this one on.Rain the 1 19:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed a request above for an upload of the offline sources. I have uploaded photographs here. They are on a 24 expiry link since the articles are copyrighted. Pinging as requested, @Piotrus:. Pinging others involved who have mentioned the issue during this AFD: @Spinixster:@Meena:@Liz:@Shooterwalker:@JuneGloom07:@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: - Thank you.Rain the 1 20:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I revieweed the first four. There are just plot summaries, and I am not even sure they all mention her. The most substantial number 3 also contains some thoughts on another actor on the actress playing Helen. I am not seeing how this is relevant or meets SIGCOV. PS. I've reviwed the Reception section added ot the article, and I fear this is the usual case of "cobbled from passing mentions" that for example is routinly not enough to save game or animation characters. That said, I fully support merging that section to a relevant list. Plot summary loss is inconsequential (that what fandom is for), but even a cobbled reception like this has encyclopedic value and fandom does not care for this stuff. However, a stand-alone article IMHO is still not warranted. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are 7 interviews with Hollyoaks cast members about Helen's stories. They form sections of the development section I have added to explain Helen's development within the show. The remainder were used in reception besides one. This was used to cite the claim that Hollyoaks did not publicise Helen's death storyline in advance. Each source mentions the fictional character Helen/Mrs C which is why they are used as a source. Helen is a fictional character and the interviewed cast discuss Helen in addition to the actress. The discussion about the actress is not what has been sourced in the article. Facts about Kathryn George's portrayal of Helen have been included. This subject may not be high brow. It was boring to edit. This is a Wikipedia article not a fandom article and I improved it for Wikipedia. AFG was not given in response and a request to upload offline sources was made. A decision has been returned but not all the sources I provided were checked over. Do we know make decisions without checking all the facts.. What good faith exists here..Rain the 1 06:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Raintheone for uploading the offline sources. But what ever happened to AGF? - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Raintheone:. I am saddened by the lack of AGF. I completely understand that editors are busy, but I wish that others could have looked at the other sources and not just the first 4. I saw the sources and I remember that the first 4 were about Helen's death and her death being revisited in 2017. First of all, they did all mention her. Second of all, the ones about the 2017 mentioned her death a lot, thus illustrating the impact of the character – if she was not notable, the magazines would not be reporting about the fictional person behind her death 13 year later. Same with her affair with Tony (I think that source was the last one) – it was fully in detail about Tony and Helen's affair and the impact the storyline was having on the actors and viewers, and if it was not notable the soap opera magazines would not be doing features and interviews on it. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A lot of work has been done on this article since its nomination. A source analysis of old and new sources would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the source upload page has expired, this is not very likely. In either case, it would be good to hear from someone who is not a member of the SOAPS as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have created a new link with those offline sources once again - here Rain the 1 18:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the article has vastly improved since the nomination 5 albert square (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There has been plenty of work done with this article. It contains reliable sources and interviews that are all relevant to the subject matter. Soaper1234 - talk 20:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am very puzzled by the comments above stating that the article is well sourced. I spent an hour looking at all the online sources and as far as I can tell not a single one of them contributes to notability:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://web.archive.org/web/20031003020329/http://www.hollyoaks.com/backstage.asp?bs=3&aID=7	The source is the show's web site	Maybe?	Very brief blurb about the actress; does not discuss Helen.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20031002154533/http://www.hollyoaks.com/backstage.asp?bs=2&cID=7	The source is the show's web site	Maybe?	Brief database entry.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20021227140411/http://www.hollyoaks.com:80/microsites/default.asp?site=mrc/steamteam	The source seems to be usurped? It's an ad for a dry cleaner.	If there is a connection to the show or character I'm not seeing it.	Unrelated to subject.	✘ No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Cunningham#refEvans	Source is Wikipedia	A circular link to the same Wikipedia article	No content.	✘ No
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/SOAP+MUMS%3b+How+screen+mothers+and+daughters+really+get+on+after...-a083638715	Source is Sunday Mail (Glasgow)	? I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Sunday Mail.	Article is mainly about the actors, one passing mention of Helen.	✘ No
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/1%2c000+and+as+saucy+as+ever%3b+Nick+Foley+on+Hollyoaks'+landmark...-a0100432202	Source is Daily Post (Liverpool).	? I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Daily Post.	Short article about an unrelated actor; one passing mention of Helen.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20030415215840/http://www.hollyoaks.com/article.asp?a=02/04/03	Source is the show's web site.	Maybe?	Article is about a different character; does not mention Helen by name but there's a single passing allusion to her.	✘ No
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/the+Insider%3A+Killed+off+in+fine+style-a0114764046	Source is the Liverpool Echo.	? I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Liverpool Echo.	Very short article; does not mention Helen.	✘ No
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/milo-entwistle-reveals-killed-hollyoaks-11261033	Source is the Daily Mirror.	~ WP:RSP says no consensus on reliablitly of the Daily Mirror.	Article is about a person who wrote a plot line of the show; passing mentions of Helen.	✘ No
https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/soaps/hollyoaks/hollyoaks-twist-milos-big-secret-revealed-he-killed-the-cunninghams-nathan-morris-reacts/	Source is the Radio Times	? I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Radio Times	Article is about the same writer and plot line as the Daily Mirror source; passing mentions of Helen.	✘ No
https://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/hollyoaks/a839391/hollyoaks-spoilers-nathan-morris-milo-entwistle-road-crash/	Source is Digital Spy.	WP:RSP says Digital Spy is reliable for entertainment.	Article is again about the same writer and plot line as the Daily Mirror source; passing mentions of Helen.	✘ No
https://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/hollyoaks/a30984580/hollyoaks-pays-tribute-gordon-helen-cunningham/	Source is Digital Spy.	WP:RSP says Digital Spy is reliable for entertainment.	~ Short article about a tribute to Helen.	~ Partial
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Get+to+C+soap's+only+ghost.-a0113685013	Source is Western Mail (Cardiff)	? I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Western Mail	Article is about a different character; one passing mention of Helen.	✘ 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}}.

Not entirely accurate. This one is a book source, not Wikipedia itself. Seems like the so called usurped source has an issue. If you click "About us" on the link it reveals the content about Helen. It was the main content when I cited the source. The sources about the actress are relevant to the character. The character is not a real person, facts about Kathryn George's portrayal are relevant. The source about George in which Helen is not mentioned is just used to state she joined the show in 1997. It was never used for anything else, but to aid the general readers understanding. The sources are being analysed without the context they are used in the article. There are also offline sources which I have been good enough to upload. All I have done is try to improve the article by adding real world information and explaining the fiction better than the plot summary fancruft that was originally served up. There are 31 citations used but only the lowest value are singled out. What about the full page interviews with cast I uploaded? They add some value here. I guess the issue is this subject is boring and low brow no matter how much you try and improve it.Rain the 1 02:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No acknowledgement of the offline sources where Helen is mentioned numerous times. This fictional character is from 1997 and remained on-screen until 2004. Helen seems to fair better with offline sources. Perhaps that is because of linkrot and the loss of online content over the past 20-26 years. I will single out some of the offline sources. They give Helen the significant coverage asked for in this AFD:

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Green Gully SC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green Gully Reserve

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

This page fails GNG and GEOFEAT, with sourcing being deficient for SIGCOV. The current sole working external link is four sentences and insufficient for SIGCOV; other ref has a 404 error. Of the sourcing I can find:

A highly brief listing and entry from the city council, which is non-independent and non-SIGCOV IMO.

4 sentence non-SIGCOV coverage from an unreliable source. Its about us shows no staff expertise or editorial policies.

An ongoing project entry of unclear reliablility covering this briefly along with another location.

<5-sentence non-SIGCOV entry mentioning this reserve while noting a case study that has since been removed.

<5-sentence announcement on the creation of a new car park.

Overall, I am unconvinced that any of the sourcing meets GNG, and am surprised this passed NPP. I am also fine with restoring the previous redirect target, but because the BLAR was contested, AfD is the next logical step. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Sports, and Australia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. TarnishedPath^talk 10:39, 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]
Redirect to Green Gully SC - I'm not seeing any independent notability, but it is a likely search term. Giant Snowman 13:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect and Merge to Keilor Downs, Victoria, Green Gully SC is named after the Green Gully Reserve area, its a multi-use area. And not solely used by Green Gully SC. @GiantSnowman: Did you even read the prose on the article? Govvy (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you mean the article which opens 'Green Gully Reserve is the home of Victorian Premier League team Green Gully' and which does not mention any other notable occupants? Don't be such a mardy bum. Giant Snowman 14:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two things to point out, There is one ground right next to the Green Gully training pitches, but it does not belong to Green Gully, it belongs to the Keilor Wolves Soccer Club. From the prose and from the infobox, owner is City of Brimbank and not the football club. Now where do you want to go? City of Brimbank or for more accuracy Keilor Downs, Victoria?? Govvy (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Gully SC per GiantSnowman. The other tenant is not notable, and a brief mention could be added if necessary. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seriously, whats wrong with people, Green Gully Reserve, is a reserve (a park area) [60], all the pitches are in the reserve, along with other sports pitches. Housing multiple things [61], the article is so wrong. I suggested a redirect, but hey it needs a total rewrite, GiantSnowman, really, your suggestion on the redirect is so wrong. @Presidentman: Did you even have a proper look? Govvy (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with VickKiang's assessment of the sources in both the original nomination and their response below. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Presidentman: Is it your intention to ignore the whole nature reserve, park, play area, other sports solely to have a redirect?? Govvy (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being rude to people is no way to encourage people to change their mind... Giant Snowman 18:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unsurprisingly, after doing a proper looking, what we have is a massive reserve (park) under the name of Green Gully Reserve. The article needs a total overhaul, clearly the above and nomination have no interest in doing proper research otherwise they would know that the article should easily pass WP:GEOFEAT. Green Gully is a national park.[62]. Govvy (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article you linked above shows this being a track in the Werrikimbe National Park, Oxley Wild Rivers National Park in North Coast, Country NSW. Whereas this is a Victoria park, a different state compared to NSW. This edit you made claimed that this reserve in Melbourne, Victoria and another track part in a NSW park are possibly related. This is incorrect- if you want to refactor this to be about a track in a completely different national park, then nothing here should be retained and you should start a new article anew. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, [63], Proludic was engaged by Brimbank City Council to provide the main attraction of the new playground at Green Gully Reserve: a landmark play tower with two thrilling slides that integrates into the natural reserve. Govvy (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, [64], Discover this 5.3-km loop trail near Keilor, Victoria. Generally considered an easy route, it takes an average of 1 h 13 min to complete. This trail is great for birding, hiking, and mountain biking, and it's unlikely you'll encounter many other people while exploring. The trail is open year-round and is beautiful to visit anytime. Govvy (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, [65] Green Gully Reserve is a wonderful adventure playground for families located in Keilor Downs, north of Melbourne. The playground highlight is the huge three story tree house tower with two connecting slides that the kids will just love exploring. Other play equipment includes swings, balancing beams, climbing ropes, nature play areas, native bird sculptures, basketball court and fitness stations. The kids will be so entertained at this park, theyll want to fly back soon. Govvy (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, [66], Brimbank City Council is restoring Green Gully Reserve, a former tip site located above Taylors Creek to native vegetation. Building on the previous years successful revegetation of 3,000 seedlings at Green Gully Reserve, Brimbank city council enaged Anglopac Environmental in Spring 2011 to install 6,000 seedlings on the site. The hill side has now been transformed into a forest of tree guards. The native species planted there will establish over the next 6 months and flourish with the amazing growth already witnessed from previous years seedlings. The friable and nutrient rich soils will help the seedlings to out compete the weeds and provide soil stability for the steep slopes and provide habitat for the flora and fauna in the area. Govvy (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These references indeed are about the same reserve, unlike the link to the NSW national park. But I've analysed this in my nomination, whereas these two encompass IMO non-reliable UGC content (the articles include reviews by users with no subject-matter-expertise, and is akin to sites like TripAdvisor, that IMO doesn't help in notability). Finally, this website has a basic about us page but insufficient editorial control (i.e., staff page, editorial policies, and the like) to be a reliable source. I understand that we disagree in whether the materials here are sufficient regarding whether they are reliable and meet significant coverage. I have already commented enough to make my case, and will leave it for other editors to the opine. So I will abstain from commenting further. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, @VickKiang: Did you look at the map? See where the pin is, that is the grounds and sports area, then to the right on the map you see all the green space, so the reserve runs from Keilor Downs all the way to Keilor East. You should understand the scale of the reserve from that. So all that area redirected to a football stadium makes no sense to me. Regards. Govvy (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem is that the other green is not part of the Green Gully Reserve but part of the Brimbank Park. Yes I agree that the latter is notable, but it is not part of the Green Gully Reserve. It is true that I have not been to there (I do not live in Melbourne), but I have carefully inspected the map, and have researched this, with no sourcing treating this reserve and the other park separated by a road as the same. In the other AfD, you say that I've never been to there. That is completely true- I do not live in Melbourne, but it is unpersuasive and unrelated to notability. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided is for a place in the state of New South Wales. The article we are currently discussing is about a reserve in the state of Victoria. Two completely different parks in different states. TarnishedPath^talk 07:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting but just because some online sources attest to Green Gully Reserve being a great place does not constitute SIGCOV of this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~To clarify that as a nom I still support a redirect to either Keilor Downs, Victoria or Green Gully SC. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment - User:Govvy - I wasn't involved in this AFD until you mentioned it on my user talk page. I haven't yet reviewed the article or its sources. But what is clear to me is you, User:Govvy, are insulting other editors. Did you even have a proper look? and Did you look at the map? are disrespectful to other editors. Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - A review of the sources shows that they are all tourist information sites, and as such are not independent sources. Tourist guidebooks published by independent publishers are independent secondary sources contributing to notability, but these are not tourist guidebooks.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	anglopac.com.au	Web site of a conservation group that has restored the park	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	alltrails.com	Description of a hiking trail at the park	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	melbourneplaygrounds.com.au	Description of facilities in the park including dog runs	No	Yes	Yes	No
4	play.com.tennis.au	A guide to tennis courts and clubs in Australia	No	Yes	Yes	No

The article as written does not establish general notability because it is does not establish independent coverage. Not expressing an opinion at this time as to whether to redirect to the football club or to the town. Maybe Govvy's arguments are based on sources that they have read that are not listed. If so, adding the sources and tying them into the article might be the Heywood criterion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have rebuilt the article, added more citations, added citation ideas to talk page. Changed info box over to Infobox park. Please review. Govvy (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry to comment again. Of the talk page sources, ref 1 is a submission from Brimbank City Council on a proposed change to the park. Because they played a large role in constructing and updating the park, I do not believe it is independent. The other three new refs are clear trivial mentions. So I still support a redirect to either of the two mentioned targets. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 10:23, 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 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!} 05:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumbong High School

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

Tagged for references since 2015, no reliable non-directory hits in Google, GNews and GNews Archives. Alternatively, redirect to Caloocan#Education. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:50, 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) 03:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are over 60,000 public high schools in the Philippines, and there isn't enough information that would make this article notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. --- Tito Pao (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given recent expansion of article. I'm surprised the editor didn't come here to comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article was expanded with the directory type websites that I mentioned in the nomination. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:16, 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darfur campaign

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

No updates or evidence of a campaign Jebiguess (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Is there any evidence of a true "campaign" in Darfur? This page has been up since the beginning of the war in Sudan, and seldom edited since. There are only two battles mentioned, the battle of Geneina and the battle of Nyala, capitals of West and South Darfur respectively. The other city mentioned is Kabkabiya, which hasn't been edited to even mention a link for it's page, and the only incident in Kabkabiya was the killing of three WFP staff early in the war.[reply]

Other Darfuri cities and capitals, such as Zalingei, Ed Daein, and El Fasher are not mentioned in the article, with the latter mentioned in the infobox. Cities like Kutum, Sirba, Misterei, Kubum, and others are also not mentioned at all, likely due to the lack of editing on this page.

While all of these issues can be solved with a ton of editing, what is the big picture here? There is no evidence showing that there is a connected military campaign by the Rapid Support Forces or Sudanese army in Darfur, with goals of capturing one town to move to the next. In state capitals, with the exception of Ed Daein, the pattern has been a siege or attempted siege by RSF/Janjaweed against a garrison of Sudanese forces, with varying degrees of success. This is no different than El Obeid or parts of Omdurman for that matter, so why is Darfur singled out? For non-capital cities like Kutum and Misterei, it's primarily been local militias against the Janjaweed, which are moreso Arab tribal fighters than coordinated RSF.^[1]

Essentially, I'm proposing this page be deleted because it was WP:CRYSTALBALLing the War in Sudan, and that there's little evidence of a coordinated campaign by any side, nor is the military tactics used any different than other regions of Sudan (with the exception of Khartoum due to urban warfare).

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Sudan. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Missing updates and not being complete is not a cause for deletion + not sure about if WP:CRYSTALBALL fits/applies here as the article is not what nom propose. In essence, the page refer to the fight in the Darfur region during the War in Sudan (2023). Many sources use similar wording to describe warring in the region, see UN Dispatch, AP, The New Humanitarian and Progressive. We might need to start discussing moving the page to War in Darfur (2023) FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:36, 28 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!} 05:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It just needs updating, thats alll Lukt64 (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 17 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Things

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

Now here's the thing: this whole construct/concept is a piece of IBM 'thought leadership', and a phrase coined by IBM - and promoted by the company - in the pursuit of commercial goals. So I nominated it for G11, and it was then sent to draft. Now it's back and it's STILL problematic. I'll quote here from the G11 template, "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." (my bold)

So here we have an article about an idea and associated catchphrase that solely serves IBM - sourced to IBM, the opinions and/or op-eds of its staff and a couple of non-IBM sources dealing with tangential concepts that have been accepted into the mainstream. It's promotion, plain and simple.

If speedy is declined and the draft mainspaced by its author without addressing the fundamentally IBM-centric nature of the whole idea (hard to do - again from G11, "would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic.") then I would suggest the only possible outcome is deletion. You could redirect to IBM but then that gives IBM effective ownership of the phrase on Wikipedia... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree at least that this falls under "other content not suitable" at the moment . Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not believe any of the content currently in the article is suitable to merge into internet of things, however, I would not object to a redirect with history kept if a mention is worked into that article without being contrived. With regards to anti-corporate bias, I believe it's reasonable to take a harder line against commercial promotion versus the "I'm a fan of this" type of promotion, and I believe that this is supportable by the spirit of our PAG. See the difference between COI and PAID or GNG and CORP for example. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The whole article is just an IBM promotional piece. The sources are weak too - two are primary sources directly from IBM, a Forbes article that turns out to be sponsored content by IBM, a press release and a promotional brochure by Vodafone, a blog post by whatever the hell Peaq is, and pieces by other businesses that aren't reliable sources. Delete the whole thing. No redirect either, because as Alexandermcnabb correctly pointed out, there isn't enough independent coverage to grant IBM ownership of this phrase on Wikipedia. Cortador (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As @Seraphimblade: said in this article - Not really a G11, but not mainspace ready either; reads more like an essay than a summation of references. Will move to draft. I did a total rewrite of the article as recommended to me. Certainly this article cannot be classified as a promotional article, as it comes from reliable sources and is a viable wikipedia topic.--Zytty (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable source? Cortador (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources available in the article, including the following Techradar,Techtimes, Rcrwireless, [67], [68], Thesundaily, Businessinsider...and many other newspapers, books mentioning the name of the article. Zytty (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus on TechRadar, RCR Wireless News, or The Sun Daily, TechTimes was deemed unreliable, Economic Times was deemed unreliable as they apparently don't always mark sponsored content, and Business Insider also apparently doesn't always mark syndicated content as per Wikipedia's lost of perennial sources. The single reliable source here is Sensor. Cortador (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get 'Sensor'... sorry, slow bear... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Sensors (journal), which is the source for the PubMed link. Being a MDPI journal, reliability is... debatable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, PubMed - gotcha. Thanks. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sensors is the journal the PubMed article Zytty linked to above is in. It's peer-reviewed, so that is one actually reliable source in a group of dubious ones. Cortador (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Alpha3031's comment above, I did have a closer looks at MDPI. Their Wikipedia article is 75% controversies. Wikipedia is not a source, of course, but maybe we should have a second look at what they publish, as MDPI has been alleged to be a predatory publisher, and have some level 0 journals. Cortador (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to I did a total rewrite, I have to say when people say total rewrite, they do not usually mean going through 6 of the 20 paragraphs with a thesaurus while keeping the semantic meaning of each clause nearly identical (or at least, substantially similar). If there is any appropriate redirect destination, it would probably be internet of things rather than IBM, which I hesitate to suggest as such while it does not mention the concept. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Buzzwordy and promotional; all sources I could find were either not independent of IBM/Peaq or were breathless opinion pieces that made me instinctively cover my wallet. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be you practising the economy of things, right there... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief summary into internet of things. A search found a couple of papers section 2, The digital economy of things and [69], and a chapter in a book, The Economy of Things. These in addition to the Sensors article mentioned above show discussion of the concept independent of the original IBM source. IMO the sources confer marginal notability, but as a concept discussed in reliable sources, the topic is solidly verifiable. As the EoT concept is discussed in the context of IoT and indeed depends on them, a brief summary in the internet of things seems the appropriate target. That preservation of verifiable material is preferred over deletion is our Wikipedia policy (see WP:ATD and WP:Preserve). I also think we need to be sensitive to systemic bias in Wikipedia, in this case an anti-corporate bias. If an academic had first come up with the concept of EoT, I suspect we would not be having this discussion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 13:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but an academic wouldn't be leveraging the coinage of the concept for commercial advantage, would they? And the issue I see - 'anti-corporate bias' apart, is that using a Wikipedia article to help mainstream/cement a 'thought leadership concept' driven by a corporation is an abuse of Wikipedia. Getting back to the nomination, "...it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea." In other words, it's "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course an academic would leverage the coinage of a concept for personal gain! Such leverage would increase their reputation or notoriety and increase citations, leading to better chances of success in getting grants, corporate funding, and promotions at work. With respect to the nomination, the origin of a topic doesn't matter--if a topic is discussed in enough depth in reliable sources, that is verifiable information, possibly notable, and is suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia. My suggestion of merging a brief summary from RS both preserves verifiable information and can easily remove any advertising and hype problems. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, 'The Economy of Things' book you linked to is a) self published and b) by a gentleman called Enamul Haque who, we would fervently hope, is not the same Enamul Haque employed by IBM India. So we're really back to square one - find a reliable source that does not originate with IBM and this attempt to coin a phrase to use in a 'thought leadership' campaign. We come back to the same basic point - this article has G11 splashed all over it in nice, blue lettering... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good find on the book source, agreed it isn't independent. But not back to square one at all--the other three sources (the two articles and the Sensors article) are independent RS (AFAICT) and are fine for verification of basic facts and merging a brief summary. I still see no compelling argument for deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little skeptical on the conference proceedings by the way. Leaving aside for the moment whether AWK AACHEN is fully peer reviewed for the moment, it doesn't seem to be on the same topic as what IBM proposes? Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge an article that must be on wikipedia.--Tristancr (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion on the chance that there is some content here that is worth Merging. I have no opinion on the ultimate fate of this article, I just don't want to be quick on the delete button here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More than enough hits in Gscholar discussing this thing, I would give it a pass. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus here. Just editors with very different assessments of this article and its sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the newly-created article does too much repeating of IBM marketing claims in Wikipedia's voice to be kept. Also, I don't see any good references; when I did a Google Scholar keyword search, most of the hits were unrelated to the IBM-coined topic. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep however the material in the article is easily verifiable by the sources present, fully supporting Mark viking idea.--Nimorinka (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge per Mark viking) it seems like this is somewhere between an IBM promo and WP:CRYSTALBALL. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 04:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is far too early to tell if this new buzzy phrase will be adopted or where precisely the "Characteristics" section really comes from. There are no independent sources and we should be deeply suspicious of topics where the content is provided by companies invested in the success of the topic. The topic is simply promotional and even if it is destined to take off as a separate industry segment, WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL applies. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:50, 17 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 Draftify‎. Thanks to User:Graham87 for his help with this history merger. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Lino

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and develop. I have reset the article classification to stub because it is at a very early stage of development, as would be expected for an 18-year-old player. I think the topic meets the notability guidelines, perhaps marginally so, and all that is needed is for the article to be developed. I know there is a WP:TOOSOON guideline which would apply if Franco was still a reserve player only, but he has made his professional debut. It is surely "too soon" to delete because, if Franco's career takes off, the article will have to be recreated and that would mean time has been wasted. PearlyGigs (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His career may take off is not a good enough argument to keep. WP:TOOSOON applies. TarnishedPath^talk 10:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search indicates that the subject fails WP:SPORTBASIC. This was created WP:TOOSOON. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with TarnishedPath that fails WP:SPORTBASIC. 'Draftify' is a good option, but my understanding is that the policy is not yet approved?? Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this discussion as Draftify but found that Draft:Franco Lino exists already. Should that draft be deleted in favor of this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Draft and Delete The draft is very similar to the article being discussed here, but not identical. I think the best option is to combine the two in draft form, as it may be WP:TOOSOON to be in mainspace. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I tried to Merge this article and the draft version and even though the edit history didn't overlap, the system wouldn't allow me to complete a Merge. Perhaps it's because they were in different namespaces. Maybe someone could ping an admin who is more technically adept at merging page histories and they could take a stab at this process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: see above. I suspect the draft first needs to be histmerged into the mainspace article and then moved ot of mainspace without leaving a redirect. Could you take a look when you have a chance? Jenks24 (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jenks24: All done. I have no position on what should happen to this page though. Graham87 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Graham. @Liz: histmerge has been done so you should be fine to close as drafity now if you want and move it to Draft:Franco Lino. Jenks24 (talk) 13:34, 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. after substantial work was done on this article to address problems. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Murray

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

Lack of established notability and orphaned- both concerns for nearly a decade. GraziePrego (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deorphaned, added a second published work, added reviews as sources for notability. PamD 08:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a short section about another North American contemporary writer called Melanie Murray (probably not notable), as this seems useful information to help the reader to distinguish which of the two MMs they are looking for. It may be slightly WP:IAR but I reckon it helps the reader. PamD 15:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning keep. (I wish AfD nominators would not mention orphaned as a reason for deletion.) Ebsco is finding second review for the Burns book: Quill & Quire, Mar2017, Vol. 83 Issue 2, p31. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:15, 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!} 03:33, 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 no consensus‎. I don't think further relistings would result in a clearer outcome between those editors arguing to Keep and those advocating to Delete. This is not a comment on the article content, sources or page title which can be discussed on the article talk page. It also does not preclude future trips to AFD but I would advise waiting several months before nominating this article again or it could result in a procedural close. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kelmendi

AfDs for this article:

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

A search on google books bring zero results for a Battle of Kelmendi article is an orphan, none of the sources mention a significant battle but clashes that took place between 1624 and 1638 (already mentioned on the Kelmendi article). Fails WP:N(E) No historical significance & no sufficient sourcing for a standalone article. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC) edited Wafflesvarrg (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Events, Turkey, and Albania. UtherSRG (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sources used in the article:

1 1685 treatise WP:OLDSOURCES seemingly unrelated quote N
2 1866 book WP:OLDSOURCES Does not mention a “Battle of Kelmendi” but various clashes taking place between 1624 and 1638. N
3 1722 book, WP:OLDSOURCES + does not mention a specific “Battle of Kelmendi” N
4 website article using the same old sources to illustrate folktale N

Primary sources do mention this event, but I don't think that it ever acquired a distinctive name in historiography: Winnifrith 2021.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maleschreiber There is no denial that clashes between Ottoman troops and the Kelmendi took place between 1624 and 1638, both Malcolm and Elsie mention them, but neither of them bring up a 1638 battle of Kelmendi. Elsie in the Tribes of Albania writes: "In the following decades, (after 1624) the Turks made numerous efforts to subject the Kelmendi, but with no decisive result"; Winnifrith says: "In 1638 Turkish forces had taken the field against this tribe to punish them for brigandage" while Malcolm 2020 just says: "in 1638 the local inhabitants of Novi Pazar and northern Kosovo sent a petition to the Sultan, pleading for action to be taken to defend them from the raids of the Kelmendi". If a significant battle did take place WP:SIGCOV from contemporary sources would exist which would warrant a standalone article, otherwise Ottoman-Kelmendi clashes can be sufficiently described in the Kelmendi (tribe) article. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC) edited Wafflesvarrg (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC) edited Wafflesvarrg (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There does appear to be at least one contemporary report of the campaign, by Frang Bardhi (1606-1643), reprinted at [70] with some commentary credited to Robert Elsie. It is cited in the Kelmendi (tribe) article, with other sources. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RecycledPixels Yes you are right, I added that content to the Kelmendi article, it also includes Elsie’s commentary/warning that this 1638 document was a “somewhat glorified text” about the Kelmendi tribe under attack, which may explain why he chose to repost it on his personal website and not use it in his reference book The Tribes of Albania (Kelmendi Tribe chapter pp. 15–36). I also added two more sources (Ernest Lavisse and François Lenormant) mentioning that same punitive expedition sent against the tribe (short/trivial mentions) both relate a completely different outcome which also casts doubt on the accuracy of that 1638 document. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC) edited Wafflesvarrg (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In light of that, I don't understand why you're nominating the topic for deletion with the reason that there are no sources that refer to the campaign as a more than small clashes (a term that I'd define as opportunistic and somewhat unplanned skirmishes between forces, but you may be using with a different meaning), and that there aren't any sources that support a standalone article. You've just identified several, and I pointed at one (that you had provided) that clearly indicated that it was a significant, well-planned campaign with a large buildup. Perhaps the title can be improved. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I researched the topic first and found no battle of Kelmendi, the closest thing I could find in 1638 involving the Kelmendi was a punitive raid which is not addressed by WP:SIGCOV, directly and in detail. The one source that you mentioned is an WP:OLDSOURCES which does not seem to be WP:RELIABLE (see previous comment), and is not backed up by any contemporary source. Albanologist Robert Elsie’s history of the Kelmendi makes no mention of it (you can actually read the whole chapter here); neither does Malcolm (see first comment). The French sources that I found say that in 1638 the Kelmendi chiefs got their head cut off (!) following a punitive raid. This is hardly enough for a standalone article that's why it was added to the Kelmendi (tribe) article. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on the analysis of the sources, this fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.2.48.60.9 (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do you have a registered username? Wafflesvarrg (talk) 08:30, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Seems to be an improper WP:SYNTH of various incidents. --Griboski (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I searched for sources and this was in fact a campaign which is described in detail and at length by several primary sources (1638 Frang Bardhi:The Pasha of Bosnia attacks Kelmendi). I have started expansion of the article. The topic is legitimately notable and it can be expanded into a very detailed article. It should be renamed to Kelmendi campaign (1638)--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maleschreiber Bardhi has been discussed previously, it is a single OLD source posted on Elsie’s personal website with a warning and contradicted somewhere else, it seems to be more documentary-archival material than reliable description of an event; I doubt it is a RS but this can of course be discussed… nevertheless more than one source is needed to show NOT so please share your research and where you have seen a 1638 Kelmendi campaign “described in detail and at length by several primary sources” Thank you. Wafflesvarrg (talk)

Keep I am in agreeance with @Maleschreiber that the article should be renamed as opposed to deleted. There is indeed primary source material and even some secondary source literature describing this specific campaign. Aside from Bardhi's report mentioned above and in the article itself, there is also a report by the Ottoman historian Mustafa Naima who presents the campaign in a very different light and, perhaps, more detailed manner than Bardhi - thus adding nuance to the topic. Naima's report is also discussed by the Albanian historian Selami Pulaha who critiques Naima's clear bias in portraying the campaign as an Ottoman victory. In short, if renamed and expanded appropriately, the article does have potential. :Lezhjani1444 (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lezhjani1444 That sounds interesting, regarding Naima/Ottoman and other sources, can you please also share? as long as they are reliable since WP:AGE MATTERS and address the topic directly and in detail to pass GNG, it would be good to see new material. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naima's historical account is published in Selami Pulaha's Qëndresa e popullit shqiptar kundër sundimit osman nga shekulli XVI deri në fillim të shekullit XVIII: dokumente osmane (1978). Pulaha also includes a commentary and critique of Naima's account, describing it as a biased source which was written to portray Vučo Pasha's campaign as a success, when in reality (as Bardhi mentions) the Ottoman army under Vučo Pasha was forced to retreat from Kelmendi due to heavy losses and a lack of supplies. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a more recent paper (2017) by Luan Tetaj on this campaign titled: "Kryengritjet e Kelmendaseve në shekullin XVII". Lezhjani1444 (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thank you @Lezhjani1444 for actually doing research this is really helpful to the discussion; from what you sent, the only one accessible one is "Kryengritjet e Kelmendaseve në shekullin XVII" but that looks like a simple mention, (please correct me if wrong): Sultan Murad IV, fearing an unexpected situation, in 1638 ordered Vuço Pasa the Beylerbey of Bosnia to gather an army from Hercegovina, Albania and Serbia to start military expedition as soon as possible in order to press the main center of the movement, namely Malësia e Madhe. However, even this time, as many times before, ottoman attempts failed this is good for the Kelmendi article mentioning the campaign but not enough to warrant a stand alone article. Is there anything else that addresses the topic directly and in detail? Wafflesvarrg (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help. Tetaj does write more about the campaign and seems to agree more so with Bardhi's account, although he does include information which from Naima. I have translated it and will include below, although apologies if my translation seems clunky and a little incoherent at times, I'm not accustomed to translating entire paragraphs of Albanian, however, this should give a general idea hopefully:

In February 1638, fearing the unpredictable situation, Sultan Murad IV ordered Vučo Pasha, the beylerbey of Bosnia, to raise a large army from his own pashalik and those of Herzegovina, Albania, and Serbia for a final expedition against the main centre of unrest in Malësia e Madhe; aiming to spare the locals no mercy and put them all to the sword. Being charged with this task, Vučo Pasha gathered over 15,000 soldiers, composed of Dalmatians, Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians, and Bosnians. While chosen for their physical strength, these troops had no experience in battle and war. Vučo Pasha arrived in Albania, setting camp above Lake Shkodra where the Ottoman army rested for 3 days. On the fourth day Vučo Pasha arrived at the city of Shkodra where he called upon the sanjak-beys of the city and Dukagjin, ordering them to raise a force of 1,000 Albanians - either Muslim or Christian - and attach them to his army. It is believed that Vučo Pasha was accompanied and supported by 9 sanjak-beys and 2 pashas with inferior ranks, Halil and Nahun Pasha. However, Vučo Pasha had supreme control over the imperial army. After all the preparations were made, he began his military expedition into Kelmendi. After reaching a mountain peak from which the inhabitants of Kelmendi could be seen, Vučo Pasha ordered his troops to expand into the interior of Kelmendi; keeping a guard of 2,000 soldiers with him on the mountain top. However, as the Ottoman soldiers entered, the local rebels rushed to blockade the roads from which the army had entered; entrapping them with with large stones and trees. As such, the Ottoman army was trapped and resorted to razing and pillaging the villages, gathering sums of loot. Aware of the threats against them, the Malësors had previously taken their women, children, cattle, and valuables up into the mountains to hide, while the men prepared for battle; also leaving the Ottomans empty handed. It is during this confrontation that the popular folk saying "it is not Kelmendi which fights, but the country" was invented. As a result of heavy snow fall in the region, the roads and passes which the Ottoman army had planned to cross in order to engage the rebels had become impassable. Having razed a number of villages and running low on food reserves, Vučo Pasha ordered his troops to retreat two weeks later. Meanwhile, becoming aware of the Ottoman retreat, the Kelmendi - under the leadership of Vuk Doda - attacked the Ottoman army, where it is believed that a thousand soldiers were killed. The Ottoman army suffered heavy losses and were routed, leaving many casualties and spoils of war behind them. When Vučo Pasha was informed of his army's defeat, he attempted to flee but was stopped by the sanjak-bey of Dukagjin, advising him to wait for the remnants of the army. After joining with the rest of the army, Vučo Pasha returned to Shkodra and spent a few days there before returning to Bosnia. Vučo Pasha was unable to subdue the Kelmendi by force and thus attempted to establish agreements with the tribe. For example, news had spread among the Kelmendi that if the locals, both men and women, were to surrender within a week they would be forgiven and compensated for the damages caused by the campaign. Despite this proposition, the Kelmendi refused and Vučo Pasha's attempts were unsuccessful. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Lezhjani1444 for the quotation and transcription, we are definitely making progress as this source contains details that corroborate Bardhi. Could you provide the full details please, the full reference with the page..etc if Naima wrote this and when. Since we also have two conflicting accounts, could you tell us more about Pulaha’s commentary and critique of Naima's account? The more details we have the closer we get to SIGCOV. Once established I would suggest a rename and move this conversation to the new TP. You do not need to translate by hand, you can take a screenshot and upload as an image to google translate for instant translation. Thanks again. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Above is my translation of pages 85-7 from Luan Tetaj's paper "Kryengritjet e Kelmendaseve në shekullin XVII" (2017) discussing the campaign of 1638. As for Naima's historical account of the campaign, I am not entirely sure when it was written, though I think it was part of his historical compilation of 1704. Naima's account (including footnotes) spans pages 110-5 of Pulaha's book, I can share the pages if you and others would like, although note that the report has been translated into Albanian. As for Pulaha's commentary (starts with a brief introduction of Naima's account), I can translate since it is shorter:

1638, January-February The Albanians of Kelmendi, Piperi, Palabardhi (i.e., Bjelopavlići) and Rožaje rise up in revolt/uprising and begin launching attacks, extending into Bosnia. An Ottoman army composed of around 15,000 soldiers under the command of Vučo Pasha, the beylerbey of Bosnia, is sent in order to counter the rebels and manages to penetrate into the highlands of Kelmendi. However, the Ottoman army is encircled and attacked by the rebels. During the fighting, the Ottomans suffer heavy losses of both men and resources, forcing them to retreat without confronting/subduing the rebels - whom were revered/noted for their unparalleled heroism and bravery. This is reflected in the works of Ottoman historians from the 17th century themselves, although their works present a distorted and false versions of the historical events. (p. 110)

Naima distorts the the events and defeat(s) of Vučo Pasha's army in Kelmend, portraying the campaign as a victory. [The defeat of the Ottomans] can be convincingly proven when referring to documents/sources of the 17th century. For example, Frang Bardhi, a contemporary source who lived during the events, testifies that while Vučo Pasha's army entered into Kelmendi during the winter of 1638, the army was encircled and that all the paths for escape and resupplying were blocked. The unrelenting attacks from the Kelmendi and the and the lack of food supplies placed the Ottomans in a very dire situation, the army was left with two decisions: either to break the encirclement or succumb to starvation. During their efforts to break the encirclement, the Ottomans suffered heavy losses in both men and resources, with Frang Bardhi stating that the Kelmendi had managed to kill around 1,000 Ottoman soldiers during their first attack. Even in Naima's distorted narration the heroism and bravery of the rebels in their fight for freedom is presented clearly. (p. 115)

Regarding Naima's attestation of an agreement (Ahdname) reached between Vučo Pasha and the rebels of Kelmendi, in which it was stipulated that the latter would: no longer cut off trade routes and roads, pay tribute/tax (haraç) as before, and be resettled from Kelmendi to the nahiyah of Plava, becoming loyal subjects. Pulaha considered this to be evidence of Vučo Pasha's defeat or inability to fully subdue to the Albanian rebels, and Naima's attempts at embellishing the event to deny the Kelmendi of victory:

The arrival to an agreement clearly shows that Naima embellished the events and attempted to deny the Ottoman defeat. Via the agreement, the Ottoman state was forced to recognise the autonomy of these regions, which they had enjoyed in previous years, and this would only have been possible if the rebels had managed to defeat Vučo Pasha. (p. 115) Lezhjani1444 (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Maleschreiber, plus the discussion I had with Wafflesvarrg when I hijacked Maleschreiber's comment thread above. Satisfies WP:GNG, so keep and rename to a more appropriate title if needed. I don't think a merge/redirect to the tribe article because some of the issues that Wafflesvarrg has raised relate to the accuracy and reliability of the sources. A standalone article is the place to expand upon modern interpretations of the reliability of earlier sources, not hijacking the tribe article where this subject might merit, at most, one paragraph before overwhelming it. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RecycledPixels I’m not sure how you can already vote and say that it satisfies WP:GNG, without “significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail”; we only have one source which may not be RS contradicted by two passing mentions that do not address the topic directly and in detail. At the moment it clearly fails to meet the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't already vote before this, I was asking you questions for clarification while I formed an opinion. This was my first and only bolded vote as a result of that discussion. I don't agree with your assessments about the sources. We have a contemporary report by Frang Bardhi that is significant coverage of the facts of the event. We have a modern re-publication of that report with some critique by Robert Elsie on the albanianhistory.com, as well as another source by Elsie, the 2015 Tribes of Albania, page 31, he uses Bardhi's writing again in mentioning the attacks by the Kelmendi on caravans in Albania, Bosnia and Serbia so clearly he felt that Bardhi's writing was factual, albeit possibly embellished. In mentioning Bardhi's work in that book, he cites "Injac Zamputi (ed.), Relacione mbi gjendjen e Shqipërisë veriore e të mesme në shekullin XVII. Teksti origjinal dhe përkthimi nga Injac Zamputi. Burime dhe materiale për historinë e Shqipërisë, 3. Vëllimi I (1610 – 1634), Vëllimi II (1634 – 1650) [Reports on Conditions in Northern and Central Albania in the Seventeenth Century. Original Texts and Translations by Injac Zamputi. Sources and Material on the History of Albania, 3. Vol. I (1610 – 1634), Vol. II (1634 – 1650)]. Tirana: Universiteti shtetëror i Tiranës, 1963, vol 1, pp 276-278" (citation 35). The webpage reprint of Bardhi's writing also cites "Peter Bartl (ed.), Albania Sacra, 3 (Wiesbaden 2014), p. 137-140" and "Injac Zamputti (ed.), Dokumente për historinë e Shqipërisë (1623-1653) (Sankt Gallen & Prishtina 2015), p. 193-198." so there's clearly more written about this event and/or Bardhi's writing on the event (that I haven't attempted to access since those were clearly written in a language I don't understand and don't have the time or interest to translate). Those by themselves establish WP:GNG, without even considering the other sources brought up here, such as Lavisse, Lenormant, and others. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie is using the part of the document that is backed up by other sources (Kelmendi attacking merchants, mentioned by everyone) Elsie is skipping the part we are talking about which is also how we should proceed here per wiki standards. A mere mention of an unnamed event doesn’t help with GNG, neither does a single possibly unreliable source from 1638 not corroborated by other independent sources or by recent research by modern historians. “To be suitable for a stand-alone article a topic needs to show significant coverage in reliable sources” none of the sources you mentioned satisfy that. Bartl and Zamputti only present archived documents related to Albanian history. If you look it up and translate all that it is easy to check. Lavisse is also just a mention, Lenormant contradicts Bardhi and is not enough for an article (full quote is on the Kelmendi article). You need to look at the type of content to see if they provide SIGVOV not just at their existence. At the moment we do not have anything significant or reliable to warrant this article. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Maleschreiber, sources clearly indicate that it wasn't just some clashes but an full Ottoman campaign against the Kelmendi tribe. I think its also important to note that it is very strange, that the User who joined Wikipedia a few days ago directly starts to nominate 2 articles of another user for deletion. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the prior comments so you can familiarise yourself with the discussion. Maleschreiber has not brought source(s) (yet) but the same source (Bardhi) that I was already discussing with RecycledPixels, an OLD source that might be unreliable since it comes with a warning and is also contradicted by other mentions. At the moment we only have passing mentions which do not address that event in details and are not enough to demonstrate GNG and SIGCOV. Not sure I understand your last comment but you're welcome to comment on my tp. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To be clear with all the participants (and with the administrator closing this AfD), since I don't think I can keep answering such a large number of editors for long. Frang Bardhi's report from June 1638, has value as a historical source, but its reliability may be subject to scrutiny. Robert Elsie has characterised Bardhi's account as "somewhat glorified" which suggest that the report contains elements of exaggeration, myth-making, or bias that may have distorted the true nature of the event (looking now at new source provided by Lezhjani1444). Here are the other two sources mentioned, translated from French, which contradict "Bardhi" [71].:

Ernest Lavisse - Histoire générale du IV siècle á nos jours: Les guerres de religion, 1559-1648. P. 894 [72] All the mountains were engulfed by the hordes of Doudjé-Pasha: the majority of the Klementi, Albanians of the Catholic religion, were transplanted to Serbia and Macedonia (1638); and Sultan Mourad IV, to whom Albanian heads were brought, with their hair divided into four braids and decorated with silver chains, joked about it with the nobles of his court, saying: “See how well Doudjé adorned the heads of my subjects of Albania.“ This servitude of the Albanian and Serbian mountains was to last sixty years.
François Lenormant - Turcs et Monténégrins P. 129 [73] Despite so much suffering, they still resisted in 1638, when Sultan Mourad IV, freed from the war with Persia after the capture of Baghdad, charged Doudjé-Pasha, former bostandji-bachi, appointed governor of Bosnia. (...) Doudjé-Pasha's expedition opened in the heart of winter. The courageous mountaineers, although weakened by famine and lacking ammunition, put up a desperate defense. They rolled huge blocks of rock from the tops of the mountains onto the Turkish army. The death of their knèze Vokodoud, killed in a fight, and a few days after that of the voivode Hotasch, whom the Pasha himself surprised by climbing an inaccessible peak with crampons, deprived the Clementi of their best chiefs and determined their submission. The leaders of the tribe were decapitated, and their heads sent to Constantinople. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as currently, there is No consensus. A couple of comments, first, the time stamps on this AFD are all out-of-whack because the AFD wasn't transcluded correctly. It was started 9/14 but didn't get placed on the daily log page until 9/18. Secondly, User:Wafflesvarrg, please do not bludgeon this discussion. Do not respond to every comment here that has an opposing point of view with a contradictory comment. Finally, AFD is not the proper location for a content discussion so please do not get into a debate of minute details on each source that is better to have on an article talk page. This is a general discussion on whether this article should be Kept, Deleted, Merged or Redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apologies all for hijacking the conversation earlier, I'm a newbie to this! I am summing-up all the findings below and on the article TP. I am not against a rename to "1638 Ottoman expedition against Kelmendi" for example, but is that enough material for an article? wouldn’t it make more sense to create a section with that name in the Kelmendi (tribe) article?. I will let the community decide and will do my best to improve the topic following whatever decision is taken. If new sources are found please share. Thank you to User:Lezhjani1444 for all his research, wishing everyone a good day. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC) edited (typo) Wafflesvarrg (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In February 1638, Sultan Murad IV commanded Vučo Pasha, the beylerbey of Bosnia, to lead a 15,000-strong army, composed of soldiers of various origins (Dalmatians, Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians, and Bosnians), to quell unrest in Malësia e Madhe and to punish the local tribes for brigandage. After stopping in Shkodër to receive an additional 1,000 Albanian soldiers, the military expedition entered the the highlands of Kelmendi. The challenging terrain and heavy snowfall compelled the Ottomans to resort to pillaging and razing villages in search of supplies. Anticipating the Ottoman threat, local Kelmendi rebels concealed their families, cattle, and valuables in a grotto in the mountains. Outcome of the campaign differs depending on sources: According to Ottoman historian Mustafa Naima, and to 19th-century French historians Ernest Lavisse and François Lenormant (using Ottoman and Western sources) Kelmendi leaders were caught and beheaded, their heads were then sent to the Sultan in Constantinople, while the surviving members of the tribe were relocated to Pristina and other regions. Austrian historian Spiridon Gopčević writes that starved to death, the Kelmendi surrendered after the death of their leaders Vukodud and Hotaš, and that the majority of the tribe was relocated to Pristina. According to Albanian bishop Frang Bardhi, and to modern Albanian scholars (using Bardhi’s report as source) the Ottoman force found itself encircled and attacked by the Kelmendi, during the confrontation a thousand Ottoman soldiers were killed, leading to the Ottoman force retreat to Bosnia. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are sources and there are questions about the sources. I suspect this article is not the correct final form, and a rename of the article may very well be in order, but that is not an AfD outcome. A redirect or merge does not seem like a good outcome in this case, as there is some subject here that has not been shown to be a clear sub topic of an existing target. The sources that are identified are sufficient to pass GNG for an article about these events. It may not be this article but improvement by way of renaming and refactoring the article would be a content discussion going forward and is out of scope of AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can someone point to which secondary RS provide SIGCOV of this skirmish as a defined event? If the only sources with more than a passing mention are primary then they unequivocally do not contribute to notability and the article should be deleted.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Turner

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

Baseball player who fails to meet GNG guidelines. He has never played in the top level of professional baseball. Fbdave (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Kansas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the deprecation of the baseball SNG, there is no requirement to play at the top level (e.g., MLB). The key is whether there is enough SIGCOV to pass GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete Hits on a search bring up Trea Turner. Aside from the MLB draft and a brief article of his time at Missouri State, there really isn't anything to bring here. Conyo14 (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search for "Trey Turner" -Trea brings up very little. Two of the sources in this article are about the Nationals drafting Luzardo and Giolito, having nothing to do with Turner, and another is just about the 2020 season cancellation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outside some coverage from when he was drafted, there's not a ton in terms of coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:10, 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 Speedy keep, withdrawn (non-admin closure)‎. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biota, Cinco Villas

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

Has one sentence, one source, and basic infobox. Got DEPRODed PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Spain. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Spanish article https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biota_(Zaragoza) has plenty of content and sources, I've added Template:Expand Spanish. Reywas92^Talk 00:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will translate the article PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep municipalities clearly pass GEOLAND and the status of the article isn't normally relevant as long as sources do exist, see WP:RUBBISH. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep a stub with room for improvement is no valid rationale for deletion in its own right.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Obviously. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: the subject clearly passes WP:GEOLANDm and sources can be added to improve the article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

◆NOM WITHDRAWN PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 16:52, 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.

[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.

[FAZ_2022-06-23-3] Plickert, Philip (2022-06-23). "Start-up Newcleo sammelt 300 Millionen für neue Atom-Entwicklungen". FAZ.NET (in German). Retrieved 2023-10-02.

[Escande_Le_Monde_2023-4] Escande, Philippe (2023-03-21). "Nucléaire : « Newcleo est en passe de devenir la start-up la mieux dotée d'Europe »". Le Monde.fr (in French). Retrieved 2023-10-09.

[5] Rothbart, Karolin (2023-03-21): Atomenergie-Start-up hofft auf Milliardenfinanzierung – Newcleo wirbt mit sauberer und günstiger Kernkraft, Börsen-Zeitung, No. 56, p. 11

[Vitale_2023_q218-6] Vitale, Cat (2023-07-26). "Newcleo signs major agreement for nuclear naval propulsion study". Ship Technology. Retrieved 2023-10-09.

[Mustoe_2023_o154-7] Mustoe, Howard (2023-09-17). "France is more supportive of us than Britain, says UK nuclear startup". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2023-10-09.

[Intelligence_07_08_2023-8] "Newcleo's atomic push: safer, cleaner, cheaper". fDiIntelligence.com. 2023-09-25. Retrieved 2023-10-09.

[9] [1]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]