Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 15: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:20, 15 May 2022

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 14	May 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Singrauli State

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

Almost zero coverage of this princely state online (as compared to a zamindari with the same name) except for its own website, would fail WP:NOTABILITY. Scratchinghead (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Nepal, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had created the article to cover a "Singrauli" that was missing across Wikipedia. Now that I have realized that it was boosterized by vandal U. Baba and by HistoricGeek2345. I have realized that it should be deleted. Scratchinghead (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep this article, it seems to be relevant in the history of india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyaytyhyaynyiyeylyluytyeysy (talk • contribs) 02:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have never seen an instance where an actual state such as this has been deemed to be non-notable. However, this is an odd case. According to one of the sources cited in the article, Singrauli was not a princely state in its own right but part of the state of Rewa.[1] And I can find no record in the London Gazette of the knighthoods claimed to have been awarded to three of the maharajas. KStJ (Knight of St John) is awarded for service to that order, does not confer a title and would be unlikely to be awarded to an Indian maharaja. I have to question the accuracy of this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is an elaborate hoax. There is a city and a modern district of the name, which are being used for facts and external links to make this article seem more plausible, but generic sources like worldstatesmen.org mention Rewa but not a Singrauli. Stan (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as HOAX -- If this was a princely state, I would expect there to be an article: every UK peerage has an article; and Indian princes ruled, which British lords did not. However as Necrothesp has pointed out it was part of the state of Rewa. I am not sure of viceroys could award knighthoods, but if they could, these might not be gazetted in London. However the Encylopaedia Britannica in dealing with Bagelkhand Agency does not support its existence. That article has been subject to vandalism and needs to be reverted further see [2]. I was nearly taken in by this hoax, which seems tom have been well prepared about last February. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list of forged maps alone is just amazing: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by HistoricGeek2345. I have a hard time thinking of why anyone would go to that much trouble... Stan (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prepositional adverb

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

Unsourced and not notable. The phenomenon itself is notable, and is discussed in our article Phrasal verb. However this particular terminology and implied category is not one that linguists would recognize. A Google search shows that a few language teachers are using the phrase, but not serious sources, and not enough to make this "a thing". In language history, words do migrate from one part of speech to another, and there is nothing unusual about dig sometimes being a verb and sometimes a noun, or down sometimes a preposition and sometimes an adverb. Prepositions and adverbs do often have the same form in many languages, but "prepositional adverb" is not a standard term. Delete or possibly convert to a redirect? Doric Loon (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the article's WP:OR and its use of terminological quackery. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linguists would recognize it, not least from its entry in Chalker's and Weiner's 1998 Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar where it is on page 311. It's in Blake's 1988 Traditional English Grammar and Beyond, too. I hardly think that either Edmund Weiner or Norman Blake invents "terminological quackery". Very poor research, people. Uncle G (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The terms themselves aren't quackery; the quackery is in the article's convoluted use of the terms – so much convolution and conflation beyond simple fixes, esp. since the subject matter is well covered elsewhere. Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject matter is not covered in that article--and of course it's not covered well in this current article, but that's not for AfD. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linguists do recognize it (present!), and besides by Uncle's book hits, JSTOR is full of references where the term is used commonly. And if the Shakespeare Quarterly has proper editorial control against quackery, then we can even speak of a "quasi-prepositional adverb". Paull F. Baum (needs an article--look at what links there) recognized as "bi" (in Beowulf l. 3047) as a prepositional adverb, and five examples as "mid", and that article is so ancient that he calls it "the Beowulf". Worth citing as a possible example of 1902 quackery is Gildersleeve, Basil L. (1902). "Problems in Greek Syntax". The American Journal of Philology. 23 (1): 1–27.: "We can see how habit brings about love (consuetuda concinnat amorem)--how the independence of the prepositional adverb gives way to the seduction of the verb". I don't know what he means but it sure is pretty. So, keep.
(As for grammar, modern grammarians like Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum and Drmies would simply call it a preposition and do away with that whole nonsensical "must govern a noun" nonsense, but that's for another day. Still, Doric Loon, this isn't really about Denominal verb or Deverbal noun--this isn't a matter of diachronic linguistics; it's a matter of definition, and the influence of 18th-c linguists--some of whom were indeed quacks who in turn influenced more quacks, which is how we end up with a bunch of silly "rules" and the intellectual laziness of the College Board.) Drmies (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect) because it's unsourced, doesn't say much, and I believe the topic is best treated elsewhere (preposition and/or adverb) - it could redirect to Preposition and postposition#Adverbs and particles as it should NOT redirect to English phrasal verbs as that's specific for English. But as others points out, there's not actually any quackery or the like to the term itself (which could argue for a redirect). Replayful (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Replayful, "unsourced" is not an argument for deletion; it has been pointed out in this AfD that at least two books and two academic articles discuss the term. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 01:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jews for Israeli–Palestinian Peace

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

Renominating for the same reasons. 1st AfD was closed as no consensus.

Non-notable organization. Trivial coverage in both English and Swedish sources. Mooonswimmer 13:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Before reaching my conclusion I reviewed the argument in the recent AfD. I see it was closed as "no consensus" after being relisted twice. I also did some searching, found some sources and added them in. I think these additions demonstrate notability. CT55555 (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument of CT55555. I further would say the sources proposed by @User:Goldsztajn in the AfD discussion earlier this year are strong enough to indicate notability. Historyday01 (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per argument of CT55555. per sourcing. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I posted 13 sources at the last AfD, I do not think it necessary to post the same sources here. Passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the nominator. I see you describe yourself as a "super-duper-hyper-inclusionist". There seems to be very little appetite to delete this. Is it too early to suggest WP:SNOWBALL keep? CT55555 (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My philosophy has shifted a bit in that regard, and I'm not too keen on having the page deleted or anything. This is just a discussion to help me train my Wikipedia muscles a bit. I'll be sifting through @Goldsztajn's proposed sources sometime tomorrow. I'm not fluent in Swedish, so it'll take me a bit of time. Mooonswimmer 22:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mooonswimmer That's not a particularly encouraging reply nor grounds for an AfD. At the very least, it demonstrates a lack of WP:BEFORE on your part. I second CT55555's call for a SNOWBALL here and encourage you to withdraw the nomination. Take as much time as you want considering the sources, but clogging AfD with nominations for "training" purposes is somewhat disruptive. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've carried out the necessary preliminary checks.

Citation [1]. Encyclopedia, tertiary source. 1 sentence in a 2930 page selection. Doesn't help establish notability.

Citation [2] Goes more into depth. This works.

Citation [3] Doesn't help establish notability, for obvious reasons.

Citation [4] Interview, primary source. Doesn't count toward notability. The publication of the interview in a reputable source would be a strong indicator of possible notability. Where was this interview published? Mooonswimmer 23:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #4, the citation states where it is published (palestinagrupperna i sverige). Please forgive me if my enthusiasm to participate in an AfD-for-training-purposes beyond convincing every other editor that this is good enough to keep. Combined with the very recent closed AfD, the justification for this one is on even thinner ice than I first realised. I really think you should reconsider withdrawing this one. CT55555 (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Safe to say it doesn't count toward notability, don't you agree? And see my comment below. Mooonswimmer 23:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that's safe to say. I think there is an established consensus that the hypothesis that interviews don't count towards notability at AfD is not agreeable to the wikipedia community. So I would say that a source the includes interviews (some by people connected to the organisation, some from a Palestinian organisation that is collaborating with them) is that it's open for debate. It's not the New York Times, but it's not nothing either.

I would also emphasize that we're allowed to consider the overall citation situation, lots of small mentioned can add up to notability.

This isn't a clear cut case. But it does seem clearly enough for everyone here to say "keep" and even you said you don't want to delete it, so what are we debating here? CT55555 (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 42#Interviews As A Reliable Source For Core Notability Claims?

Consensus seems to be "keep" per GNG, or per Goldsztajn's proposed sources. If you could explicitly point out 3 reliable, independent, secondary sources, that'd be great. I've addressed Goldsztajn's sources in a comment below. Mooonswimmer 00:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create this article. I'm a volunteer editor. I hope my work was a contributing factor in convincing the room. I again state my reluctance to participate further in your training of your "Wikipedia muscles", I think it's a bad basis for an AfD and not good use of my time. CT55555 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m well aware of that. Thanks for your contributions to the article. And perhaps I could’ve worded that better. I usually stick to working on my own articles on Wikipedia. By “training my Wikipedia muscles”, I meant engaging in discussions so I could learn more about how to interpret and apply guidelines, and how to gauge what belongs on Wikipedia and what doesn’t. I didn’t randomly nominate this page for deletion so I could use the AfD as a playground. I did the preliminary checks after stumbling upon the article for a second time. I’m unable to see how it passes WP:GNG. Again, I’m not very active in AfD discussions, but I thought one was supposed to justify their vote. Not sure why it would be a waste of time to help an active editor understand how X article is valuable. I hope the others will eventually pitch in. Happy editing! Mooonswimmer 00:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the previous AfD:

^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] There's also a little bit more than 1/2 a page describing the organisation and its history here^[9] and there was international coverage when the Israeli ambassador to Sweden vandalised an artwork by one of its members.^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]

References

^ Katz, Olle (29 August 2015). "Debattinlägg: "Riksdagsledamöter stöttar israeliska högerextremister"". SVT Nyheter (in Swedish).
^ "Svenska judar oeniga om vägen till fred i Israel". Svenska Dagbladet (in Swedish). 9 January 2003.
^ "DEBATT: Skilj på legitim Israelkritik och judehat" (in Swedish). Göteborgs-Posten. 11 October 2021.
^ "DEBATT: Palestiniernas folkrätt glöms bort i debatten". www.expressen.se (in Swedish). 3 Dec 2021.
^ "DN Debatt. "Oriktiga uppgifter om SodaStream"" (in Swedish). Dagens Nyheter. 19 July 2013.
^ "Judiskt stöd till Mana". Arbetaren (in Swedish). 29 January 2008.
^ "Judisk kritik mot Ebba Busch Thor". Dagen (in Swedish). 25 August 2016.
^ Helgesson, Fredrik (22 February 2017). "De vill lösa Israel-Palestinakonflikten utan våld". Sveriges Radio (in Swedish).
^ Landy, David (2011). Jewish Identity and Palestinian Rights : Diaspora Jewish Opposition to Israel. London: Zed Books. p. 113. ISBN 9781848139299.
^ "Israeli ambassador vandalises art exhibit". The Irish Times. 17 January 2004.
^ "Israeli Says Artwork Is 'Call to Kill'". Los Angeles Times. 18 January 2004.
^ Doneson, Daniel A (Autumn 2004). "Snow White, the Ambassador, and the Aesthetics of Death : Azure - Ideas for the Jewish Nation". azure.org.il.
^ "Sharon Praises Ambassador's Art Attack". DW.COM. Deutsche Welle. 18 January 2004.

[1] Am I being daft, or is the organization not even mentioned in the article?

[2] Paywall, I might be missing out on some in-depth coverage. Could you please share the relevant content?

[3] Not seeing any ample coverage, if any at all...

[4] "By Staffan Granér, Spokesperson Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace (YIPF)" Is this the non-trivial, independent coverage?

[5] Another paywall, would appreciate you sharing the relevant material.

[6], [7], [12] Perhaps you could explain how these count toward notability.

[8] Again, trivial mention. How does this help establish notability?

[10], [11], [13] Coverage is limited to briefly mentioning that Dror Feiler is involved with the group. Mooonswimmer 23:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You've ignored the discussion in Landry and cut off an important part of my comment from the first nomination: "40-year old organisation, its representatives have appeared regularly in the Swedish media, some examples from the last 20 years" (the first 8 refs). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Landry? Not sure what you mean. I'm trying to apply WP:CORP.

"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."

I addressed each source you've proposed, as well as the sources in the article. If you could point out at least 3 sources fulfilling the guidelines, then notability will be established and the Keep votes would be justified.

Any coverage besides trivial, passing mentions? Other than that, any major achievements, controversies, alliances? Perhaps some of these are mentioned in the paywalled articles. Mooonswimmer 13:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A misspelling: the Landy text, footnote 9. Picking apart sources this way misses the forest for the trees. NB: WP:NONPROFIT: Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A further (last) contribution: simple use of machine translation of the Swedish articles shows JfIPP has frequent appearances in the Swedish media. Two examples: "Christian Democrat leader Ebba Busch Thor will speak at an Israel-friendly demonstration in Stockholm this weekend. But the organization behind the demonstration is criticized by Jews for Israeli-Palestinian peace." or "Jews for Israeli-Palestinian peace lack a strategy!". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above, notable as demonstrated by sources. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priyotoma

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

Non-notable film, no indication filming ever began, let alone released, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 10:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -2pou (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - features two leading actors from Bangladesh. Abbasulu (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't inherited WP:NOTINHERITED, so specific people in a film do not make it notable. Film must stand on it's own. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did it though? Or did this cancel and disappear into the depths of development hell? Who can say unless someone points out some evidence. -2pou (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Girlfriends

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

This article was created in 2009, when notability guidelines were more lax than they are in 2022. As the group briefly came into existence in 1964 and then disappeared just as quickly, it would appear to me somewhat unreasonable that online sources should be mandatory here. It would appear - from unreliable, user-generated sites like Discogs, at https://www.discogs.com/artist/1050826-The-Girlfriends - there really was a trio of this name. Given the undoubtedly notable artists, producers and record labels mentioned here, it would appear to me that a deletion discussion would be the better option that outright speedy deletion. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete World Radio History has music magazines going back to the 1950s, which is enough to verify that they charted. However, searching the song title and/or various band members' names on that same site yielded no results other than the charts themselves. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cashbox Jan. 18, 1964. p. 38, their search is weird, I found on google with insite:worldradiohistory.com "my one and only jimmy boy". WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Blossoms. BD2412 T 18:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group meets WP:MUSIC just as much in 2022 as it did when I created it in 2009. The nominator gives a whole bunch of other good reasons to keep the article - this group was formed out of two other notable groups, worked with important producers, and released on a noteworthy label, alongside having a Billboard Hot 100 chart hit. Chubbles (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Charted single on Billboard Hot 100. My One And Only, Jimmy Boy. For week of February 8, 1964 had been there for 7 weeks peaking at #49.(Billboard 2.7.1964,first charted 12.28.1963) At worse merge to The Blossoms, but them charting is documented. I've added links to 3 of the book references currently cited references in article. [3][4][5]. GNG sources can be hard from 60s, but passes WP:BAND #2 & #6. Cashbox sigcov:Jan. 18, 1964. p. 38 WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources recently added.Jacona (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - group charted per NMUSIC, therefore it is of encyclopedic interest to music historians, etc, not just a random topic. This is subject to WP:V, however, though this is met. The article is informative about the group, so it is more than a definition, per WP:WHYN. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. insufficient evidence to indicate they meet WP:ORG Star Mississippi 02:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Young India Foundation

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

Does not seem to cross the notability threshold per WP:NORG – the page reads like an advertisement and mostly describes what the organisation intends to do. Yet, their actual achievement seems to be a campaign whose website [6] is currently dead. They also have scored one TED talk, one TV interview, and two articles in The Logical Indian and Youth Ki Awaaz, both generally considered WP:UNRELIABLE. The remaining references are to YouTube and Twitter. The organisation's most recent Facebook post is from July 2021,[7] their tweets have also been rather sparse.[8]

According to Indian Government data, Young India Foundation was registered only in 2019.[9]

Overall, despite the current promotional language, I see little about this organisation suitable for an encyclopaedic article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that the website of the Why 25 campaign is still up. I don't understand how an official TED Talk alongside multiple TEDx talks is unworthy of notability for the user and their work. YIF's work is far different than any other organization as it helps young people from independent backgrounds be elected to office.

The Hindu has also covered Young India Foundation and the work they do for India's young.

The remaining references are of interviews that are on Youtube. Surjanpatarkar (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, YIF's Instagram presence is quite active. Surjanpatarkar (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ORGCRIT: 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.

A "shared" article in The Hindu plus (scant) social media activity doesn't really cut it.

The three latest Instagram posts are from 13th May, 21st April and 22nd January. Less than one post a month!

The Why25 web page is a section of the main organisational website, not an additional online presence.

In short, there's not only lack of coverage in independent sources (barring a single article in The Hindu) – there's little in terms of evidence of any activity by the organisation. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. The single Hindu article isn't enough for notability. Hemantha (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jecheon AIDS scandal

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

Before it was stubified, this page was an unsourced attack page on the person the article author alleged (without eviidence) was the source of AIDS infections plus other embarrasing claims about his sexual habits. What remains says there were a lot of AIDS infections in a town in Korea. That is neither a scandal nor notable. I doubt we want to keep this, but if we do the entire history needs revision deletion as a WP:BLP violation. SpinningSpark 09:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, much of the supposed unsourced BLP violations were supported by the news reports listed in the article as external links for the previous 8 years, which a poor editor in 2020 entirely failed to make apparent in any way were then being turned into sources. However, and ironically, the text that has not been blanked for being a BLP violation, the assertion that "hundreds of people" have become infected, is in fact the main thing that is not supported by the news reports, which reported that at the time of the police investigation no further infections had been diagnosed. The verifiable material is, ironically, the stuff about the one person, and not even the later news reports cited in the Japanese Wikipedia's article (ja:堤川AIDS事件) say that there turned out to be any other people.
The German Wikipedia has deleted both de:Jecheon AIDS-Verbrechen and de:Jechoeon AIDS Scandal, the Portuguese Wikipedia has deleted pt:Jecheon AIDS Escândalo, the Korean Wikipedia has deleted ko:제천 에이즈 사건, and even the Japanese Wikipedia doesn't say any more than that 1 person was sentenced for a crime. I suspect that the Japanese Wikipedia only still has this because no-one has really paid attention to the article since it was written there in 2012. It has been 11 years for this article. It's time that we stopped falsely claiming that 1 person committing a crime and no-one else turning out to have been involved or infected is a city-wide "scandal". We've already deleted Jindo AIDS scandal and Black Teacher Scandal which were similarly rubbish, written by some of the same editors. Per those, the other Wikipedias, and our various policies against manufacturing "scandals" in Wikipedia, delete.
Uncle G (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a machine translate on some of the ELs before nominating. Although there was indeed news stories about this persons activities and arrest, our article was off the scale with claims about this person stated as fact that even the Korean gutter press were somewhat more circumspect about. SpinningSpark 12:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not the case, alas. I looked at all of them, including the ones that were edited out of the article years ago. The press was right there alongside the article content, even publishing photographs of the person concerned inside a police station. They don't support the existence of any scandal or even the claim of anybody at all being infected, but they did actually say things about the person. That's the irony here. The only things that are taken from sources are the sort of things that are insufficient for having a biography, and the things that aren't supported by sources are the non-biographical things left in and the supposed central subject of the article, which apparently never existed. Uncle G (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable incident that is grossly exaggerated; WP:109PAPERS applies because there was no lasting coverage. Also a serious BLP violation because the article misrepresents the spread of AIDS. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion needed more engagement to establish a consensus about whether the coverage is substantial or trivial/routine, but unfortunately there were no further comments after the two relists. RL0919 (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Wales–St. Sebastian's Cricket Encounter

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

This article was deleted via a PROD and was restored. The reasons behind the PROD remain. The article is about an inter-school cricket match, which although played since 1933, lacks wider historical significance. The article is largely based around WP:NOTSTATS and WP:TRIVIA, so lacks any depth in writing to establish notability and the sources correspond to this, being all pretty much WP:ROUTINE. As school cricket is considered minor cricket, there would have to be a historical significance to satisfy WP:NCRIC; in this case, I can't see any. Matches such as the Eton v Harrow match meet this requirement, and the Royal–Thomian match is probably the closest Sri Lankan match to meet this requirement. It might be better to expand the Big Match article to detail all these matches there, using reliable sources and stepping away from a long list of stats and trivia. In their current form, all (with the exception I believe of the Royal–Thomian match) fail WP:GNG. This article also uses incorrect terminology: Test and ODI matches won't be played by a school cricket team!!! StickyWicket (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Sports, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. StickyWicket (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is poorly written in places, and bloated with trivia and statistics, as the nomination states. However, the match appears to get decent coverage in the Sri Lankan national press each year, plenty enough to meet WP:GNG in my opinion. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's enough here for a GNG pass, although large amounts of the article could be shortened or removed entirely. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When talking about WP:NCRIC, cricketers who have played in this tournament from both sides have represented the game in Sri Lanka national cricket team, including 1996 World Cup winner Romesh Kaluwitharana and Sri Lanka Captain Duleep Mendis. The current players representing Sri Lanka include Oshada Fernando, Vishwa Fernando, Avishka Fernando, Praveen Jayawickrama and Amila Aponso, all of whom are from St. Sebastian’s and Kusal Mendis and Lahiru Thirimanne are from Prince of Wales'. And other players who have played for the SL national team are mentioned in the article itself. And Amila Aponso will be played in MLC. And for WP:GNG as fellow Wikipedian Harrias said this tournament is getting decent coverage in the Sri Lankan national press each year. And in the recent years, matches are showing live on satellite tv service Dialog TV channel 140 in Sri Lanka, and it's live streaming on thepapare.com and on the ViU streaming app worldwide. (Please see this news article if you need any verification). Userpwc1 (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)— Userpwc1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Just because notable people have played in this tournament, it doesn't necessarily make the tournament itself notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userpwc1 you've misunderstood NCRIC, just because an individual has gone onto play at a higher level, it doesn't mean the cricket club, match, or league they might have played in is notable. My local cricket club had the Lillywhite family play for them, but the club doesn't have an article because it isn't notable in its own right. StickyWicket (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this is just WP:TRIVIA. No prejudice against an unevolved editor creating a new article in the future if they can demonstrate notability, but this current article is junk that doesn't prove it passes WP:GNG. Best to delete it and start again. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. as to whether this can be handled editorially, and no indication further input is forthcoming. No objection to a re-nomination when more input might come. Star Mississippi 14:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North American Association of Indian Students

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Article is basically puffery. A recently (2020) founded organisation that has only garnered brief mentions in local media, usually in relation to their election activism in 2020 and mostly as brief quotes from its staff. Contrary to the requirement of NORG, it has not received significant coverage in independent sources and thus does not seem appropriate for an encyclopaedic article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to what user Kashmiri believes is enough references to support an organization doing work. There are ways to change the article if it is 'basically puffery', but to disregard it's 'brief mention in local media' is not fair. I am listing out articles by institutions like The New York Times, Washington Post, India Today, NPR, and many other. There is also frequent broadcast coverage of the work they do. Here are some of the coverage they have on broadcast channels: NDTV,NDTV, Asiaville, CNN News 18, NewsX, News 18. I believe that is enough for significant coverage.

I would like to work with the user to edit the article in a way where it is not a puff piece but informative.

New York Times, Washington Post, Hindustan Times, News 18, PIE News, Vice News, Business Wire, News Minute, The Michigan Daily, Voice of America, Scroll, Inside Higher Ed, India Today, The Indian Express, CNET, and many others that I will not waste your time with. Surjanpatarkar (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews with Kaushik about immigration matters are not a coverage of the organisation. Let me quote from WP:NORG: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. To put it succinctly, there would need to be a number of publications in reliable sources about the organisation. The listed references don't offer that – they only contain a few quotes from Kaushik plus a few video appearances of him. That's not what is meant by significant coverage of an organisation. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage other individuals to please comment on this, as I believe User Kashmiri has an inherent bias (explicitly shown from their username). From the plethora of credible and substantial coverage linked, there aren't just 'a few quotes from Kaushik.' Rather, NAAIS has been instrumental in the past few years on a variety of issues and that deserves the references and coverage they have received. Whether it was COVID relief for students of Indian origin, the Trump administration ban against students, vaccination issues, complexity for international students, fundraising for Oxygen relief within India, an umbrella organization for Indian students, and could keep on naming so many systemic issues that NAAIS has taken to become an organization with a large following + credible work. To suggest to delete and accuse of it as puffery is demeaning to the work.

I respect the work you put in into maintaining Wikipedia, but the work that NAAIS has done is of value and importance for a growing demographic. I request others to also comment. Surjanpatarkar (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, Wikipedia is not there to list all entities that do "work of value and importance". Our criteria are significantly stricter, as you can read at WP:NORG. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I tend to agree with our Kashmiri user. Bias has nothing to do with it, we're looking at notability standards. Oaktree b (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable with edits 49.248.235.63 (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable as per nom, puffery. Oaktree b (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oaktree,

Thank you for your response. I will begin to edit the piece to make it not puffery. My goal is to create information about the work being done. Will make sure to take ou the puffery, but I do believe that 'notable' is not an issue here. As the only organization that has played a huge part in actively organizing for young Indians with quotations to go around, I do believe this is important. Surjanpatarkar (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing puffery. Notable organization and worthy if puffery is edited. Rajkumarramana (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmut Uslu

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. All of the sources are news sources that contain the person's own explanations. The sources did not directly indicate the person. I suggest deleting the content. Kadı Message 23:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sports, Basketball, Football, and Turkey. Kadı Message 23:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He seems to have held some reasonably important positions, and I see an abundance of sources in Google News that mention him in the headline. I can't read Turkish, so it's hard for me to judge, but based on his job titles, I'm not convinced this is a lost cause. I'm curious what sources may exist from the 1980s. Zagalejo (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Press

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

WP:GNG. I couldn't find any reliable source talking about this news agency that's not related to the Iranian government. Ladsgroup^overleg 18:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Organizations, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the publication a know outlet in Iran? On the page history I noticed that it was tagged with Possible self promotion in user or draftspace and I noticed the same thing especially on section Website and Social media. DownTownRich (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ladsgroup Please ping WikiProject Iran for their input. DownTownRich (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't see enough notability KhinMoTi (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gyanendra Pratap Singh

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS, only interviews and mentions. Priya Ragini (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE as per nom. There is no SIGVOC about the person, nor he is holding any top position of State or India. I would rate WP:TOOSOON. --_{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. There are many special directors of police in every state. No point of listing before he gets a top rank of any noted branch. Nang Nandini (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plant Teacher

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

I don't think this self-published book meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. It does not appear to have received multiple reviews in reliable, independent sources. The HuffPost review mentioned in the article is a "HuffPost Contributor" blog entry in which contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. It received several indie awards and honorable mentions, as listed in the article, but (in my opinion) none that are particularly notable enough. The author does not have a Wikipedia article so there is not a good redirect target. DanCherek (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a CreateSpace book that has won some pay-to-enter awards; this is WP:PROMO. I don't see any evidence for WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. -- asilvering (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In ProQuest Newspapers I only find two press releases, which are not independent. No hits in google news. No hits in Booklist or Publishers Weekly, which is almost shocking; I consider showing up in PW as kind of a bare minimum notability threshold for a post-1990s book. I haven't looked at the awards but they must be pay-to-play for a book with so little coverage -- real awards would have shown up in the news searchers. The single Huffpost article wouldn't be enough for NBOOK even if it was RS, and it appears to be a blog post. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that the critic mentioned in the article (Joel Hirst) appears to have links to the author, as he thanked her in the acknowledgements of his own book. Also note that Caroline Alethia is a pen name; Amazon and other sites identify her as Ellen Lee Alderton. pburka (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 programs broadcast by G4. ✗plicit 03:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G4's Training Camp

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

Unsourced since 2009. Zero sourcing found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by G4 - I was unable to find any substantial coverage in reliable sources regarding the show. As it is listed on the main program list for the network already, a redirect there would probably be a good idea, though. Rorshacma (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by G4. My search didn't find much either: although there are a few passing mentions in the press, there's nothing that comes close to GNG-qualifying significant coverage. I agree with Rorshacma that a redirect is a reasonable (and cheap) alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019 CAFA U-16 Championship

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

Initial PROD statement was WP:NOTSTATS applies. Unable to find the independent sourcing required to pass WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT.

Contested with I have updated some references and I have noticed thats cafa website is official site of Central Asian Football Assassination. So its now no one raise any questions. I don't see any reasons why the editor said that. The article have created three years back.

Firstly, the tournament is organised by CAFA so the CAFA website is not an independent source, see WP:IS for more info. SPORTSEVENT requires news coverage should be extensive (e.g., outside of the week of its occurrence and in non-local newspapers) and that articles should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats which also overlaps with WP:NOTSTATS. A search per WP:BEFORE did not yield any coverage that qualifies for any of the above guidelines. Lastly, the article being three years old is a fallacious keep argument per WP:LONGTIME. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, which isn't surprising, as it's a youth tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Technically ineligible but zero input and no one contesting the deletion. I see no reason to relist this a 3rd time when there's no indication that's going to change. Star Mississippi 01:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Grace

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

Seems to fail WP:BAND. He's rubbed elbows with a few big names, but gained no notability from it. Current sourcing is all passing mentions, interviews, and other assorted cherrypicking. No better sources found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Malibu Beach House

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

Shows were set here, but the house itself does not gain notability from that alone. Sources are very sparse at best, being mostly name-drops, primary, or 404. WP:BEFORE found only passing mentions, Wikipedia mirrors, and false positives. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are sparse, and what is there doesn't establish separate notability for the house. -fuzzy510 (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sourcing has been identified and the n/cs were three years ago so not particularly relevant to this discussion, Star Mississippi 01:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Merit

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

Films appears to fail WP:NFILM with not enough reviews to pass the guidelines, with none found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already. This article has had two other chances, and both were closed as "no consensus" due to a complete lack of participation. It's clear that there is no interest in improvement, nor any resources to improve it with, so just put it out of its misery already and stop dragging this out any longer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG without going to the regional coverage in Hindi and other Indian regional languages .Covered in The Hindu ,Scroll.in,Hindustan Times,Business Standard , ThePrint ,The Wire (India) ,The Globe and Mail amongst others.The Wire (India), calls it The Death of Merit, remains one of the most crucial documentations of forms of discrimination faced by Bahujan students in university spaces. The documentary is about real life suicides and is discussed in this context.

^[1]

References

^

Keep the sources found above by Pharaoh of the Wizards are enough for WP:GNG as they discuss the documentary and its subject in depth. Hemantha (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable. There is plenty of discussion around the work in reliable sources in an independent way. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZenMarket

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Jsfodness (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, and Japan. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did not find anything in English, and the only thing I found in Japanese is a puffy Nikki Business piece. Fails WP:NCORP. Jumpytoo Talk 07:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Technically ineligible, but no one is contesting this deletion. Star Mississippi 01:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Spank

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

Programming blocks are usually not notable on their own unless they receive extensive coverage, and that seems not to be the case here. It's not even mentioned on G4 (American TV network) so I see no point in a redirect. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DJ B-Real

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

Fails WP:GNG. Jsfodness (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication it meets MUSICBIO. Soundcloud, Spotify, Apple itunes, and Discogs are not acceptable sources and without those we don't have much citations. Samanthany (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Clark (host)

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

Non-notable host. Most of the shows he hosted are redlinks. Zero sources found. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted by Deb. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ravinder Singal

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

Tag team editing? See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DiggisMusic. This is a WP:ROTM police officer doing his job. Fails WP:BIO. Prime example of WP:NOTRESUME 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatantly promotional, user now blocked for spamming. Deb (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, since there's already a draft that hasn't passed review, I'm speedying it. Deb (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 11:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Wells Planetarium

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources do not seem to have changed much since last deletion discussion, so the previous redirect should be restored. MarioGom (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Education, and Virginia. MarioGom (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2022 (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 was previously discussed at AfD and the result was merge to James Madison University.

Previous discussions: 2015-07 (closed as merge to James Madison University)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks well-sourced enough. XavierItzm (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candice James

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

WP:BLP, referenced entirely to primary sources rather than reliable or notability-building media coverage, of a writer whose only stated claim of notability is having served as poet laureate of a midsized suburban city.
This is not an "inherent" notability freebie that secures inclusion in Wikipedia in and of itself; it would be fine if there were genuinely solid sourcing and/or additional notability claims (e.g. notable literary awards), but the sourcing here is entirely to the self-published websites of organizations directly affiliated with the claims and/or social networking content on YouTube and Facebook, which aren't support for notability at all, and even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that wouldn't google, New Westminster's own community weekly hyperlocal is the only place I'm finding any hint of non-trivial coverage of her, with absolutely no evidence that she ever even got coverage from the major GNG-worthy daily newspapers in Greater Vancouver, let alone anything wider or more nationalized.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have any substantial media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Poetry, and British Columbia. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there does not appear to be sufficient sourcing available to support WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:CREATIVE. On ProQuest, I found a 2012 New Westminster Record article "City's poet laureate puts spotlight on arts; Candice James has held poetry post since 2010" that includes independent content about her career in addition to quotes from her, and a 2013 announcement in the same publication for an upcoming event. There is also a short review for one of her works in Quill & Quire with some biographical content. Based on my searches in the WP Library databases I can access, online and at GScholar, I think we need more to support WP:N. Beccaynr (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, does not cite independent credible sources. Fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Society Stores Supermarkets

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

small supermarket chain--fails NCORP, as the references are essentially interviews where the founder says whatever he wants to. The Forbes "article" is no different, and is by a "former contributor" DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my humble opinion, the article is adequately referenced, after the changes I made today. Fsmatovu (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article describing a small supermarket group from its origin in purchase of an existing firm to its merger with another business owned by the same family. Leaving aside coverage which relates more to the founder and other family business, the text and references are announcement-based and fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NCORP and no article here on Khetia Drapers to which it might be redirected. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trushar Khetia who is actually notable. There is coverage, but it is mainly local and concerns the owner. A redirect seems fine for now. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Electromagnetic field or an appropriate section thereof. Star Mississippi 01:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optical field

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

This definition is found in only one source. I contend that the source is not, in fact, providing a definition and the article author has misread it. This was triggered by a proposed merge discussion here. Futher discussion on the talk page of the article. Even if this was correct, it fails WP:DICDEF. SpinningSpark 07:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SpinningSpark 07:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is hardly defining anything; it is mostly a low-quality rehash of Electromagnetic wave. Google Scholar results are mostly about any EM field generated by an EM wave, e.g. the potential well described in Phys. Rev. Lett 69, 49 (1992), while this article is solely about the electric field component. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be just jargon favored by one source. Constant314 (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:HEY. The original description was not particularly helpful, but the topic is notable and it is an important part of optics theory. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The improvement has got rid of the misunderstanding, but all it has added of any substance is the same equation found at Electromagnetic field#Behavior of the fields in the absence of charges or currents. So in my opinion, WP:HEY still cannot justify a standalone article. The lead of the Electromagnetic field article in the very first paragraph says "The electromagnetic field propagates at the speed of light (in fact, this field can be identified as light)". That is all this article is saying and the EMF article already says it better. SpinningSpark 15:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone explain to me how this is a different concept than electromagnetic field? I'm not understanding how this is a different concept, and therefore worthy of anything but a redirect. PianoDan (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The optical field is the same as the electric field. It is just the name that some people use. Constant314 (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, at best this is a redirect, and perhaps add something like "in optics, this is called the optical field" by the relevant equation. SpinningSpark 15:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that, my recommendation is Redirect to electromagnetic field. PianoDan (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with redirect. Constant314 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Crash Bandicoot characters#Coco Bandicoot. Consensus here appears to be that this secondary character lacks enough significant coverage to merit a separate article. The article remains available in the history if there is further verifiable information that should be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coco Bandicoot

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

Subject lacks the significant coverage needed to justify notability; the article's reception section consists primarily of passing mentions and sources that don't pertain specifically to the subject's characterization, actor performance, and/or impact on popular culture. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to List of Crash Bandicoot characters#Coco Bandicoot as it was previously. The justification to recreate the article just wasn't backed up by WP:RS. The character is worth a mention in a list of characters but basically all the reception are passing mentions of the character and not WP:SIGCOV; there is some heavy WP:REFBOMBing going on. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect - per two arguments above. Significant coverage just isn't there - it's all cherry-picked passing mentions, often of no real substance. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the Redirect per above. There's not much argument to add, SIGCOV isn't there, passing mentions. -- ferret (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after undoing a non-admin early closure per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 15.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. OceanHok (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First of all, I beg to differ on the "passing mention" claims. Let's look over some of the sources I've added since restoring the article:

https://gamerant.com/crash-bandicoot-n-sane-trilogy-coco-playable/ - An entire article about her and her playable role in Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy.

https://www.thegamer.com/coco-bandicoots-design-in-crash-bandicoot-on-the-run-burns-my-eyes/ - Another article devoted to her, much longer than the previous one. This discusses her design.

https://www.thegamer.com/crash-bandicoot-coco-awesome-fan-art/ - Yet another article devoted to her. While it lists fan art of her, the article also discusses her personality in the games.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/06/15/e3-2017-why-coco-is-playable-in-crash-bandicoot-n-sane-trilogy - This discusses why she is playable in Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2002/04/26/crash-bandicoot-the-wrath-of-cortex-review - Well, okay, I didn't really add this one, since it was already in there prior to the initial merge. But for a review of a game, it goes a bit into Coco beyond a passing mention.

Yes, some of the sources are passing mentions, but not all of them are. There could be more out there too. If find any, I'll add them in here.

I can understand why the article was initially merge back in 2011. There was barely any sources discussing Coco back then. However, more have since popped up, thanks to her playable roles in Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy and Crash Bandicoot 4: It's About Time, addressing the very reason it was merged in the first place. This passes WP:GNG and WP:INU, which do not require "the subject's characterization, actor performance, and/or impact on popular culture" in reliable sources. The main purpose of INU is to avoid WP:PLOT articles, and Coco does that through the creation and reception sections. This goes beyond Wikia quality.

Besides, Coco is clearly an important character in the Crash Bandicoot series, pretty much being the deuteragonist. I think the reader would benefit from Coco having her own article more than being confined to a list with a bunch of less important characters, which goes more into detail than a list article could. MoonJet (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first three sources are situational-bordering-on-unreliable, per WP:VG/S discussions. The first IGN article mentions her inclusion in the game and a little of how they worked her in, but says almost nothing about her character. The second IGN article features a single paragraph which basically says nothing but "Not as good as Crash". This is not significant in-depth coverage. This will be my only reply, as the long long long one-sided discussion at Amy Rose about very similar sources and passing mentions suggests that you won't change your stance. -- ferret (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first three are listed as situational sources, yes, but keep in mind that I'm only citing them for opinion pieces, not facts. Furthermore, it says Game Rant is fine to cite at non-BLP articles and for things that are not controversial claims. And the first TheGamer source was published after August 2020. WP:VG/S says "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable." MoonJet (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been told in prior discussions, a combination of passing mentions and fringe churnalism sources isn't a convincing case for notability. It's quite frankly getting a bit disruptive that we keep having to have these conversations because you're so obviously setting the standards far below where the community generally does. Sergecross73 msg me Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling something "churmalism" just strikes me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You might consider them "churnalism," but others may not. If I'm setting the standards "far below where the community generally does," then maybe the problem is that the project is stricter than it should be. Never mind that fact the project literally states "Video game-related articles are considered notable by this project if they pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines." on the project page. MoonJet (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:VG/S description of TheGamer: News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable. Several editorial staff have bylines highlighting their experience working with other reputable video game media outlets such as VG247. Content published prior to August 2020 should be handled with care, particularly listicles that have little news or reporting significance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already discussed this in reply to Ferret, but:

1. I am citing them for opinion pieces, not facts. See WP:RSOPINION.

2. One of the sources from TheGamer I cited in here was published after August 2020. MoonJet (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youre cherry-picking words. Churnalism is mine. But descriptors like iffy/fringe/not the best - these are pretty generally accepted. If a "The Gamer" source with a headline of "Look at the fan art" is among your strongest evidence for GNG satisfying sourcing, you're reallllllly reaching. I'm just surprised you're trying this so quickly after the community came to a clear consensus that your Amy Rose article had insufficient sourcing for its own article. This is the same sort of thing.Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter what the headline is? "Reaching?" No, I'm just gathering up some sources that discuss her that I've found, and TheGamer is acceptable for opinions, especially those posted after August 2020. Also consider the purpose behind GNG. If there's enough to write an article beyond a stub, it is presumably notable.

I know about the Amy Rose thing, but I was hoping to get a different result for Coco Bandicoot, really.

I plan to have another discussion on Amy Rose, by the way, as I've since found more sourcing for her since that consensus. MoonJet (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, this is your response when both the Amy Rose and this discussion (so far) are unanimously against you? You're going to get yourself into WP:IDHT trouble acting like this. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- can we try to focus this discussion on Coco Bandicoot and not User:MoonJet or the potential of an Amy Rose article? (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying applies to here at this AFD all the same. Sergecross73 msg me 21:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent, sure; important, no. As far as gameplay goes, you could remove her playability outright and nothing would fundamentally change, and the games' marketing campaigns have clearly felt no need to prop her up to Crash's level. The series' central antagonist Cortex teaming up with Crash for one game was the primary marketing point of Crash Twinsanity, thus prodding reviewers toward analyzing Cortex as a character, but could the same ever have been said for Coco? As it stands, she's borderline window dressing presented only as an option for players who desperately need a playable character of the opposite sex, despite its lack of effect. And even then, she's not engaging enough as a personality for reviewers to devote the same kind of commentary they did to Cortex in Twinsanity. The games are not called Crash and Coco or Super Bandicoot Sibs, she's certainly not getting a headlining game any time soon, and fans aren't crazy enough about her to make so much as a ripple, so if she's not so essential, why would anyone pay any mind? Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and others. While it initially looks like there are a lot of sources being included, this really seems to be a case of WP:REFBOMBing, as most of them are articles or reviews on the games she appeared in as a whole, that just mention her briefly as part of the review. Even most of the articles that are supposedly "about" her are simple statements of "Coco is playable in this game". As mentioned by Sergecross73 above, when the strongest actual source focused on the character is just a collection of fanart, that is not evidence that the character received enough significant coverage to justify an independent article, rather than being covered on the main character page for the franchise. Rorshacma (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't have full access to this source, but this seems to discuss Coco too: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/135485650000600404

If any of you have full access to this, please let me know. MoonJet (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just going by the headline, it looks like it's about female gamers and gaming culture as a whole, not specifically about the character. Access or no, this still doesn't advance your case. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be "specifically" about the character, just that its significant coverage. (WP:GNG explicitly states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.) But either way, I don't have access to that to tell if it is or not. MoonJet (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the study. Coco has less than two sentences of mention, in context of a child developer who wanted to use Coco as a playable character in her own Crash game (I.e. doing what later happened). The character itself is not discussed or even described beyond "appears in cutscenes". -- ferret (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and others. Reyk _YO! 04:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect North8000 (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect – per the above discussion. Atsme 💬 📧 05:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just found a source that talks about Coco in detail and about her "gender bias" and that kind of stuff (https://www.nymgamer.com/?p=17216) It's a big page too. Going by their about page (https://www.nymgamer.com/?page_id=2), the place seems to be reliable. I'll tag some people in here that previously voted for some thoughts. @Atsme: @North8000: @Reyk: @Rorshacma:. MoonJet (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this is at all a reliable source. It's never been cited by other reputable gaming-related sources as far as I recall, or even within Wikipedia from what I can see. Just seems like another glorified blog. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Their about page says this and I quote: "Over the years, NYMGamer’s slate of writers has featured professors, writers, and professionals from a variety of industries, but the focus has always been the same: unpacking games from a feminist perspective, and having a good time while we’re at it.

In 2015, we began planning a careful shift to a peer-reviewed middle-state publication offering a dedicated space to feminist games studies. Our first issue debuted in April 2018, and while we will continue to offer blog content, along with our regular podcast, the journal aims to create space for peer-reviewed articles on feminist games scholarship, including textual engagement, criticism, theory, and research, as well as multimedia presentations, as well as critical book and game reviews." MoonJet (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Such a statement doesn't mean anything unless it cites specifics, and given how little mention this site has gotten from others, I'm not convinced that these "professors, writers, and professionals" could have been all that credible or influential. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it actually has been cited by Game Informer, another reputable gaming source. See here: https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2015/08/23/analysis-two-reasons-why-playable-female-characters-are-here-to-stay.aspx MoonJet (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A single point on a graph doesn't lend prestige. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is, MoonJet demonstrated that at least one reliable source has cited them for their research, in response to a sweeping claim that there is none who do. Their first peer-reviewed publication in 2018 had the involvement of Adrienne Shaw, a published academic who researches video games. I also found two other Wikipedia pages which have cited NYM Gamer as sources: Fran (Final Fantasy), a GA, and Zoë Quinn. I understand why other editors would still consider the sigcov threshold to not be met because we don't have enough sources, but you have not provided a convincing argument that we should disregard this source entirely due to alleged unreliability other then mere opinion. Haleth (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This cherry picking of pings is concerning. I actually believe this could potentially be treated as a reliable source, but even then, that makes it the only in-depth source uncovered so far, so doesn't change the status quo. Additionally, the particular author does not appear on the staff page, instead appearing to be a guest or freelance submission, which might kick out the reliableness. Unfortunately the site does not clearly label their blog content half, which makes it difficult to vet. -- ferret (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there's TheGamer and GameRant sources too. Even if you want to discount the fan art article, there's still the other two. Though, I know you are leery on those due to them being situational sources, but I like I mentioned, they are fine for non-BLPs and non-exceptional claims, especially for opinion pieces.

Anyway, while the author is not on the staff page, it doesn't look like a site where just anyone can write for. Also, her Linkedin page says she has experience in Purdue University, which is where the top editors of that site are from. MoonJet (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - replying to ping. Many game characters arguably still reside in a niche market or they may be considered subordinates to a globally notable and highly popular main character, as is the case with Coco as demonstrated here. I must add that siblings of notable game characters do not automatically inherit that notability, and this is such a case. I'm not saying that all game characters must reach the level of global notability as did Pac-Man and Mario Bros. but they must reach the minimum requirements set forth in WP:GNG. At this time, Coco fails to meet those requirements. Perhaps that will change over time, but right now we have to consider NOTCRYSTALBALL, and until N is met, a redirect is the way to go. Atsme 💬 📧 13:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme:True, notability is not inherented. But you don't you think the NYM Gamer, TheGamer (which there's two of) and GameRant sources add up the minimal notability guidelines? Altogether, that's at least four sources of significant coverage (arguably more than that), more than the recommended mininum of three sources. Well, in Wikipedia's terms, non-trivial. Short doesn't necessarily equal trivial, as this page says. We should also consider why notability is a thing. I would argue there's easily enough here to write an encyclopedic article beyond a stub. MoonJet (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MJ - NYM Gamer began as a blog, but their "About" section states: In 2015, we began planning a careful shift to a peer-reviewed middle-state publication offering a dedicated space to feminist games studies. Then when you read Editors and Staff, we're not talking about a peer reviewed scientific journal, ok? You might say it's a bit of an advocacy or maybe not - either way, it's not quite what they paint themselves to be. Now look at The Gamer - editor-in-chief Stacey Henley is arguably famous but fame is not the same thing as notability. What are her encyclopedic/academic credentials? She appears to be an advocate for women's rights - we could certainly use her talents on WP - but does the editorial staff at The Gamer really qualify as experts for inclusion of academic/encyclopedic content relative to the study of feminism? The sources are not exactly what WP would consider scientific, academic in the same light as high quality WP:MEDRS. I shudder to think WP is going to be the home of every game character that's trending now because they were mentioned or written about in those 4 sources - which of course have their own agendas relative to the gaming industry; consider WP:NTEMP. I have no doubt that the editorial staff does their best to maintain credibility despite using outlets like Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, etc in their pool of sources. To keep things in perspective, we're talking about video games; technology comes and goes with the wind. Where does their money come from? Are they truly independent? I think those are questions that need closer study. Atsme 💬 📧 21:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, current consensus at WP:VG/RS is that TheGamer is reliable; though content posted before August 2020 is to be approached with caution. I mean, there's so many characters that do not have an article. Looking at the Crash series, the only other characters with articles are Crash himself and Dr. Cortex. It certainly wouldn't hurt for Coco to have one too.

Also, keep in mind I'm not citing TheGamer as academic source. It's NYM Gamer I'm citing as an academic source. MoonJet (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to correct you there. NYM Gamer is a website run by an editorial board, with some of its members being published academics (e.g. Mia Consalvo and Adrienne Shaw) or professional critics (Yussef Cole). The article you cited is a blog-style article, which is essentially on the same tier as typical features published by Kotaku and Polygon. It clearly has been through an editorial process, but it is not an academic source just because the editors in question may be academics. The actual academic journal itself is here, of which only two issues have been published at the time of writing. Haleth (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. NYM Gamer is probably the best source that has turned up in this discussion for the topic to date.The employment status of the article's author is not really relevant as long as the website or publication that publishes it demonstrates that it has an editorial apparatus in place where submitted articles must be approved by editors prior to publication. As for format, websites like Kotaku and Polygon are special interest blogs run by professional staff writers and editors. I understand why consensus for the article to be redirected isn't inclined to change because there aren't more sources of this calibre, but I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt that the article can still be improved by sources yet to be discovered or cited. When the NYM Gamer source is assessed in conjunction with the quoted articles from TheGamer and GameRant, there is enough coverage to write a short article in my view. PS: MoonJet should have pinged all of the other editors who were involved in the discussion as well, like OceanHok, Zxcvbnm and Sergecross73. Haleth (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure I wasn't pinged because he knows this wouldn't move the needle for me. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was pinged, and it does not move the needle for me either. I still fully advocate Redirecting and covering the character on the main character list for the series. Rorshacma (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the assumption certain editors were watching this discussion as it was. It seems Cat's Tuxedo and Ferret has anyway. I must note that I wasn't for sure whether it would needle Sergecross' stance or not. Though, to be fair, maybe I should have pinged everyone in here.

Also, I don't know if this is reliable (though, they seem to be affiliated with Siliconera and Destructoid) but this source lists Coco among the 10 "great" female characters in video games: https://www.pcinvasion.com/10-great-female-video-game-characters/

They give explanation, and comments on her levels in Crash 3: Warped and the politicism around her. On its own, I agree that it wouldn't establish notability for her, but I do think it establishes notability for her even more so with the NYM Gamer, TheGamer and GameRant sources than without that source. After all, we must also consider the principles on why notability is a thing, like I said above. MoonJet (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This isn't that complicated. "King's redesign of Coco Bandicoot for Crash Bandicoot: On The Run burned my eyes more than shampoo being squirted into them. It makes you scream bloody murder because someone poured some water into the bottle and mixed it up without your knowledge ..." This is not a suitable source for an encyclopedia. The video game space has so many mainstream news sources that cover so many aspects of this major franchise yet our discussion above stretches far into unreliable and opinion sources. It's clear that this character is not covered widely as independent from the ensemble of other characters in the series. So cover it in the ensemble article: List of Crash Bandicoot characters#Coco Bandicoot. czar 14:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of edible disasters

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

I was so excited to see the title of this page, but ultimately I can't find sufficient coverage indicating "edible disasters" is a thing (my search indicates that combination of word tends to refer to disasters cooking attempts/meals). i.e. it fails WP:GNG/WP:LISTN. The sources cited are all about the individual events, not about the grouping. Inclusion criteria seems to be not anything related to edibility but just involving food. We already have list of non-water floods, which includes many of these items (that has sourcing issues, too, but I haven't explored whether it should be deleted). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Events, and Lists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These disasters weren't "edible"; they may have involved food or drink in some way, but some of them killed people. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of vaguely related topics, probably made because someone thought it was funny. Dronebogus (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Moreover, 'edible disaster' is not a notable (or oft-used) term. Llwyld (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As there are no reliable sources actually discussing or grouping these, or similar incidents, together under the concept of "edible disasters", the list not only fails WP:LISTN but the concept behind it appears to be WP:OR. Rorshacma (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence that this is a coherent topic. It is clearly misnamed. A sugar refinery explording or a distellery burning down does not create edible things, it creates burning waste that kills and destroys.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have started Category:Food processing disasters as a partial replacement, to fit in with industrial accidents from other industries.--Pharos (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That is much better than this flippant nonsense page. Dronebogus (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may be worth keeping the page and changing the name and content to reflect Category:Food processing disasters Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 00:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While hilariously titled, "edible disasters" isn't a normally used phrase (nor is it even clear as to what it means) and it's difficult to imagine any rationale someone would have for using such a list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by A MINOTAUR (talk • contribs) 20:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete Per WP:SNOW Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 02:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has to have come from the discussion at User talk:Drmies/Archive 140#VGP05 (q.v.). Uncle G (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It came from a discussion on Fringe theories noticeboard. idk where it got archived to Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 01:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to say we should keep this, as I deeply love the name, which I proposed at FTN, so I have a conflict of interest. There is, however, some coverage in RS for these types of groupings. Bon Appetit and Smithsonian magazine for instance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new title of food processing disaster makes it more serious, and food processing disasters are notable, you can find plenty of google results about things like disasters at food processing facilities Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 01:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still very unorganized, and is not commonly used enough. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 02:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both this article and List of non-water floods are redundant to List of industrial disasters#Food industry. Food-related disasters are neither numerous enough nor notable enough to warrant splitting to a separate article. Dan from A.P. (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other article isn’t redundant but it’s also clearly a case of “category masquerading as list”. Dronebogus (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to List of industrial disasters#Food industry. While sources and summaries are disappointingly absent from some of these entries, the one entry with a summary (the Wild Turkey Distillery fire) is well-written and presents an adequate case for the event's notability. However, I am concerned that the contributing editor copied the text from the Wild Turkey (bourbon) article (§ History) without proper attribution. Nevertheless, I do believe in the potential that if this article were to remain standing (which I acknowledge is not likely at this point), then it could be expanded with reliable sources relevant to each entry—or perhaps the relevant section of the aforementioned bold-linked article could be expanded with such information instead. Regardless of this list's merits as a standalone article, its renamed title ("List of food processing disasters") is a valid search term. Perhaps the "edible disasters" redirect which resulted from the move could be deleted as a less-likely search term, but under its new title, I see no reason to delete this article when redirecting would be a plausible alternative. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 21:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Eat I mean deleat. Seems better served via a category. While that doesn't preclude the existence of a list, it seems to be the better of the two in this case. Star Mississippi 02:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only two ones that aren't covered by articles are The Wild Turkey Distillery Fire^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] and 2013 Brunost blaze^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] so it is probably best to make those two articles and add them to the category instead Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 16:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Suckow, Alex (2021-05-18). "ARCHIVES: In May 2000, fire at Wild Turkey filled Kentucky air with burning bourbon". WLKY. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
^ "Wild Turkey warehouse fire mixes whiskey and water in Kentucky". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
^ "Wild Turkey Warehouse Burns". AP NEWS. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
^ "Bourbon And Smoke". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
^ Locker, Melissa (2013-01-23). "Giant Goat Cheese Fire Shuts Down Norway Tunnel". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Retrieved 2022-05-09.
^ published, Marc Lallanilla (2013-01-24). "Cheese Fire Destroys Tunnel". livescience.com. Retrieved 2022-05-09.
^ "Norway goat cheese fire closes tunnel". BBC News. 2013-01-22. Retrieved 2022-05-09.
^ Davies, Alex. "A Truck Carrying Goat Cheese Caught On Fire, Burned For Five Days, And Shut Down A Tunnel". Business Insider. Retrieved 2022-05-09.

Comment The page creator has moved this page around to a couple of different names, it's now at List of food processing disasters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the renaming; editors encouraged to comment on whether this adds to coherency of the list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it's certainly an interesting page, it's just indiscriminate information that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It doesn't warrant its own list article also. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am afraid this still fails Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists. What reliable source contains such a grouping? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPAGE. The article is now called List of food processing disasters [10] and was created almost 3 months after List of non-water floods was created.[11] List of non-water floods can be expanded if necessary. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MK-Ultra (band)

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

Currently fails WP:BAND. Schierbecker (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that it meets MUSICBIO. Citations not adequate. Samanthany (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 whether sourcing is sufficient, but nor is there consensus to delete. Star Mississippi 02:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mk Ultra

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

Article has been tagged for lacking notability since 2011. Mere association with John Vanderslice does not establish notability. Schierbecker (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Schierbecker (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and thank you Schierbecker for giving attention to taking out old trash. BD2412 T 05:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently available online sources: The existing SF Weekly article, Trouserpress, allmusic, allmusic. Not too bad for a 90s band. At the very least merge to John Vanderslice. No need for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Trouserpress article is a profile of Vanderslice that only talks about MK Ultra incidentally. Schierbecker (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per The SF article, two AllMusic reviews and the Trouserpress piece has three paragraphs about the band so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behrooz Astaneh

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, at least per English sources. I am unable to do substantial WP:BEFORE in Farsi, however. The previous discussion reached no consensus because Astaneh was a co-editor on a journal of some importance, according to some previous editors opposed to deletion. The article as it stands is pure puffery and there is zero material in English to create anything beyond a one- or two-sentence stub, so I think this is worth revisiting.WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Iran. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is currently located in Canada, so you'd expect some WP:GNG or WP:PROF in the English language, but I find none. Looking at his LinkedIn profile, I see nothing there that would count towards notability. Article states he is at McMaster, but search of Faculty/Staff directory doesn't find him. https://directories.mcmaster.ca/faculty-staff/ — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A ton of hits in GScohlar, but the name seems common enough that I'm unsure if they're all about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] Katz, Olle (29 August 2015). "Debattinlägg: "Riksdagsledamöter stöttar israeliska högerextremister"". SVT Nyheter (in Swedish).

[2] "Svenska judar oeniga om vägen till fred i Israel". Svenska Dagbladet (in Swedish). 9 January 2003.

[3] "DEBATT: Skilj på legitim Israelkritik och judehat" (in Swedish). Göteborgs-Posten. 11 October 2021.

[4] "DEBATT: Palestiniernas folkrätt glöms bort i debatten". www.expressen.se (in Swedish). 3 Dec 2021.

[5] "DN Debatt. "Oriktiga uppgifter om SodaStream"" (in Swedish). Dagens Nyheter. 19 July 2013.

[6] "Judiskt stöd till Mana". Arbetaren (in Swedish). 29 January 2008.

[7] "Judisk kritik mot Ebba Busch Thor". Dagen (in Swedish). 25 August 2016.

[8] Helgesson, Fredrik (22 February 2017). "De vill lösa Israel-Palestinakonflikten utan våld". Sveriges Radio (in Swedish).

[9] Landy, David (2011). Jewish Identity and Palestinian Rights : Diaspora Jewish Opposition to Israel. London: Zed Books. p. 113. ISBN 9781848139299.

[10] "Israeli ambassador vandalises art exhibit". The Irish Times. 17 January 2004.

[11] "Israeli Says Artwork Is 'Call to Kill'". Los Angeles Times. 18 January 2004.

[12] Doneson, Daniel A (Autumn 2004). "Snow White, the Ambassador, and the Aesthetics of Death : Azure - Ideas for the Jewish Nation". azure.org.il.

[13] "Sharon Praises Ambassador's Art Attack". DW.COM. Deutsche Welle. 18 January 2004.

[14] 
This tragic documentary series tells the stories of Dalit students who were driven to suicide Scroll.in

Suicide by Dalit students in 4 years The Hindu

BEYOND POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT: CASTE DYNAMICS AND ACCESS TO MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN INDIA Jayasree Subramanian Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Hyderabad, India

If there’s no caste bias, why are Dalit students killing themselves? Hindustan Times

If IITs had more Dalit professors, would Aniket Ambhore be alive? Business Standard

The mythology of the Dalit student suicide Firstpost

Casteism in Education SystemDr. Shashi Nautiyal Dept. of History, J.V. Jain College, Saharanpur, UP, India

If IITs had more Dalit professors, would Aniket Ambhore be alive? Zee News

Rohith Vemula's Suicide Triggered a New Political Wave The Wire (India)

Further reading on Dalits and India's caste system The Globe and Mail

The Death of Merit Countercurrents.org

2,400 students dropped out of IITs in 2 years, nearly half were SC, ST, OBC ThePrint

[15] This tragic documentary series tells the stories of Dalit students who were driven to suicide Scroll.in

[16] Suicide by Dalit students in 4 years The Hindu

[17] BEYOND POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT: CASTE DYNAMICS AND ACCESS TO MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN INDIA Jayasree Subramanian Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Hyderabad, India

[18] If there’s no caste bias, why are Dalit students killing themselves? Hindustan Times

[19] If IITs had more Dalit professors, would Aniket Ambhore be alive? Business Standard

[20] The mythology of the Dalit student suicide Firstpost

[21] Casteism in Education SystemDr. Shashi Nautiyal Dept. of History, J.V. Jain College, Saharanpur, UP, India

[22] If IITs had more Dalit professors, would Aniket Ambhore be alive? Zee News

[23] Rohith Vemula's Suicide Triggered a New Political Wave The Wire (India)

[24] Further reading on Dalits and India's caste system The Globe and Mail

[25] The Death of Merit Countercurrents.org

[26] 2,400 students dropped out of IITs in 2 years, nearly half were SC, ST, OBC ThePrint

[15] Suckow, Alex (2021-05-18). "ARCHIVES: In May 2000, fire at Wild Turkey filled Kentucky air with burning bourbon". WLKY. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

[16] "Wild Turkey warehouse fire mixes whiskey and water in Kentucky". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

[17] "Wild Turkey Warehouse Burns". AP NEWS. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

[18] "Bourbon And Smoke". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

[19] Locker, Melissa (2013-01-23). "Giant Goat Cheese Fire Shuts Down Norway Tunnel". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Retrieved 2022-05-09.

[20] ublished, Marc Lallanilla (2013-01-24). "Cheese Fire Destroys Tunnel". livescience.com. Retrieved 2022-05-09.

[21] "Norway goat cheese fire closes tunnel". BBC News. 2013-01-22. Retrieved 2022-05-09.

[22] Davies, Alex. "A Truck Carrying Goat Cheese Caught On Fire, Burned For Five Days, And Shut Down A Tunnel". Business Insider. Retrieved 2022-05-09.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singrauli State}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prepositional adverb}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews for Israeli–Palestinian Peace (2nd nomination)}}