Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 7: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
+Battle of Dvin
Line 78: Line 78:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callum Dixon}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callum Dixon}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal Harris (engineer)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal Harris (engineer)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dvin}}

Revision as of 18:22, 7 August 2023

< August 06 August 08 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Yohay

Stephen Yohay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Page is written like an advertisement, which is surmountable, but there doesn't appear to be sufficient sourcing to warrant keeping the page even once it's properly rewritten. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: may or may not be notable but he's working on it.
    • "Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Announces Settlement With Substance Abuse Treatment Center And Its Owner For Enrolling Patients Through Kickbacks And Using Falsified Patient Admissions Forms (announcement)". Southern District of New York. United States Department of Justice. 21 December 2020. Retrieved 7 August 2023.
    • Bryant, Bailey (6 January 2021). "SUD Treatment Provider, Former CEO to Pay $6M for Medicaid Fraud". Behavioral Health Business.
    • Hasday, Jill Elaine (18 July 2019). Intimate Lies and the Law (PDF). Oxford University Press. pp. 73–74. ISBN 9780190930233. Retrieved 7 August 2023.
      • 190-word description of a privacy-lawsuit arising from his divorce. He won.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Botswana women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kesegofetse Mochawe

Kesegofetse Mochawe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of Botswana women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least six caps for the Botswana women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The only coverage I found with more than one mention of her was this. JTtheOG (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest characters in video games

List of guest characters in video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this would fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There's really no practical reason for this list to exist. There is nothing to gain by listing together the cameos in NBA Jam, Lego: The Incredibles, and Dead or Alive 4. There are so many different types of cameos. For example, Sora appearing in a Final Fantasy game is not too unusual given both games are owned by Square Enix. Compare to Freddy Krueger appearing in Mortal Kombat, or Benjamin Franklin in Tony Hawk. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Far too many guest characters, a list that will surely continue to grow over time, to be a practical list. Same with the crossover list. Note that discussion of crossovers and guest characters at the crossover article is reasonable with a few well known examples (Super Smash Bros as a crossover fighter, or guest fighters in the new MK) but not an extensive list.
Masem (t) 20:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t quite understand why this list of guest characters has less reason to exist than the articles listing guest characters from different television shows. There is a whole category (Category:Lists of guest appearances in television) dedicated only to „List of guest characters in [x] series“ articles, which is why I split off this list from the „Guest appearance“ article in the first place. RayanWP (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, although a guest appearance by an IRL actor isn't necessarily the same as a video game where it usually boils down to just making a character model and plopping it in. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I see. Then the best course of action might be just to just reverse the split by merging the list back into the video games section of Guest appearance. RayanWP (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can try and argue that case, but if this is closed as delete, that means the list should not exist anywhere within Wikipedia. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for a selective Merge to either Guest appearance#Video games or Cameo appearance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I like the idea of the list, as other commenters have said, it's way too broad as a topic. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just wanted to add that cameo vs. guest appearances can also be varied through Easter egg (media) and the criteria for giving them a proper list appearance in the articles listed by Liz can be boiled down simply to WP:LISTN. My !vote remains the same though and honestly guest appearances in video games should be maintained in their respective "guest" or "game" articles. Conyo14 (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this list has such an arbitrary and nearly-infinitely-expandable criteria so as to render it virtually unencyclopedic. 2601:204:C901:B740:5068:3FA3:FFAE:B187 (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ibero-German

Ibero-German (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Don't see how this meets WP:GNG as a separate concept from Portuguese in Germany and Spaniards in Germany. No significant coverage (or much coverage at all) on 'Ibero-Germans' as a separate group outside of this article. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. As noted by nom, the previous AFD was for a different subject, so soft deletion can be applied here. ✗plicit 12:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gray

AfDs for this article:
Ben Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable rugby league player. Fails WP:GNG (previous AFD was for another Ben Gray). J Mo 101 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 08:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Can I please have a copy of the now deleted page.Fleets (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn) ‎. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew J. Mitchell

Andrew J. Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is suspect. Only current references are reviews of books written or edited by him. Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I initially thought that his professorship at Emory University made him notable, but I don't think that position is a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Google Scholar citations: I know nil about citation levels in any discipline, but I note that the citations are smeared across 80 works, the most cited of which has 223 citations – roughly one fifth of the total. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramzi Toure Idrissou

Ramzi Toure Idrissou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ramzi Toure Idrissou

This stub article on an association football player does not satisfy general notability because it does not have any independent secondary sources. The references state that he exists and plays association football, but are a Wikipedia link and database entries.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Wikipedia This is a link to the article about the team that the subject plays for Yes Not about the player No Yes
2 Tampa Spartans Page listing him as a member of the college team No Yes Yes No
3 us.soccerway.com A database entry No No Yes No
4 utrop.no A database entry No No Yes No

The originator has also created a draft, so that this article cannot be draftified. This article can be deleted, and the draft can be expanded and resubmitted when there is adequate independent secondary coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know what he 'wants'? Do you know him? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the draft in order to I recommend this article to be reviewed again and not to be deleted DenisBoshnakovich (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want from the admins and the people who are about to delete my publication, please review the article again DenisBoshnakovich (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to review again the publication DenisBoshnakovich (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Foreign relations of Gagauzia. Not wedded to merge target but there is consensus this isn't better off as a standalone article. Spartaz Humbug! 04:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gagauzia–Turkey relations

Gagauzia–Turkey relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relations articles between sovereign states and subnational regions are somewhat uncommon, but could be viable, given good references. This, however, seems like a WP:COATRACK WP:POV article for grievances about Moldovan policy towards Gagauzia, where the actual substance on relations with Turkey is razor thin. Geschichte (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 08:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Simpson (mathematician)

Mary Simpson (mathematician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Taught mathematics for 11 years at University of St Andrews, but I am not seeing how she meets WP:GNG or WP:Notability (academic) –CaroleHenson (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I'm making this a straight Delete due to sockpuppet activity on this page title. Liz Read! Talk! 16:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NAMTA

NAMTA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an organization, not properly sourced as passing WP:NORG. As always, organizations are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on the quality of third-party coverage that has been devoted to their work in media and books -- but two of the four footnotes here are the organization's own self-published content about itself and a third is an unreliable source, none of which are support for notability at all, and the only citation to a reliable or GNG-worthy media outlet is not to coverage about the organization, but tangential coverage about an event that completely fails to mention this organization as having had anything whatsoever to do with it, so it doesn't support the notability of this organization either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this group from having to be the subject of any external coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambush near Kaçanik

Ambush near Kaçanik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An ambush resulting in a single fatality which isn't otherwise notable for its impact on the wider conflict of which it was a part doesn't meet the criteria set out by WP:NOTABILITY, WP:LASTING and WP:SUSTAINED. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Pérez (footballer)

David Pérez (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about former footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. The only coverage available is statistical database entries. PROD was reverted without making any effort to address the WP:SPORTCRIT failure. Jogurney (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎. If more reliable sources are found or the content is improved and passes AFC review, a move to main space can be considered. Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Serpent (2021 film)

The Serpent (2021 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly written article about a film, not properly referenced as having any serious claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of their significance (notable awards, WP:GNG-worthy critical analysis in reliable source media, etc.) -- but existence is about the only notability claim being made here, and the referencing is parked entirely on blogs, directory entries (Letterboxd, IMDb), YouTube videos and user-generated "anybody can submit any self-created 'news' they want to" platforms, with not a whit of GNG-worthy coverage in legitimate media shown at all.
In addition it warrants note that this was created in userspace, then moved by its creator into mainspace, then draftified by an established editor for the same reasons as I'm listing it now, but then got moved back into mainspace by the creator without any substantive improvement — but that's not the appropriate process, and I don't see much point in redraftifying it again if the creator is going to just keep remainspacing it himself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't WP:GNG-worthy reliable or notability-building sources. Films aren't notable just because it's possible to find information about them in a Google search — they have to have coverage in a certain specific tier of high-calibre media sources, like daily newspapers and/or books, which neither Bluray.com nor AIPT are. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hello@Bearcat
The film its notable and are more information and another source
it possible eliminate the template
Best regards
George Barahona GEORGEB1989 (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the path it took to get here and the fact that the article creator is here, I'll suggest draftify to incubate, but otherwise keep per sourcing by Mushy Yank —siroχo 03:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if there is more support for Draftification or Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify - It's not hanging on by much, but it does seem to have enough coverage at least regarding it's "cult" / "so bad it's good" appeal to qualify. It definitely needs improvement though, and I would be happy to assist should the page still need repairs in a few days. I do feel that the article should stand on it's own as it is a full length film very much with it's own "presence" outside of it's creator (compared to say, a short film created by a major celebrity, where the main 'hook' of said film would be it's creator's name attached to it). A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have not decided on a vote yet, and agree that Roger ebert.com is RS, but I respectfully disagree that the above sources are acceptable as signed by their authors:
-Roger Moore is the only other source close to a RS. It is Wordpress blog with no editorial policies, but the author is a former film critic to several publications per about us. So this might meet an expert SPS and acceptable for non-highly contentious claims, and I would put it as situational to reliable.
-Blue ray.com has no about us page demonstrating editorial control and USEBYOTHERS does not appear to be widespread. Noteworthily, the author is Tomatometer-approved but not a "top critic". Still, Rotten Tomatoes's RSP entry makes it clear that Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable.
-AIPT has no editorial policies, detailed about us, or staff expertise listed, and would be generally unreliable. There is a single USEBYOTHERS- it's on Rotten Tomatoes, but this does not confer reliability, so I would put it unreliable to situational.
-Girls with Guns and Popgeek are Wordpress blogs (see bottom of pages) with again no editorial policies, about us, staff expertise, and very limited USEBYOTHERS. Both are obviously non-RS. Shockya is another Wordpress blog, there is a staff page with no indication of expertise, I searched the editors and were unable to find anything, so this is IMO unreliable.
-We are the Movie Geeks's about us page seems very fanlike, but there is a couple of contributors that are film journalists. But the piece's author (Tom Brookman) lacks subject-matter-expertise, and there is no clear editorial process that would reassure that his contribution is properly reviewed. Overall, I think this is between situational and unreliable.
My BEFORE did not unravel further sources, so I am currently leaning (re)draftify or merge. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Mord

AfDs for this article:
Lord Mord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK, as the 5+ years old note also says. Cswiki has no sources, just a brief plot summary. FromCzech (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article already seems to have a review from a museum website. Here's another review [11] Here's something from the Czeck literary center [12] There's a bit of coverage in an article in Spanish language from Notimex [13]. This should readily pass WP:NBOOK. —siroχo 10:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have much experience with book pages and maybe I was too hasty with the deletion nomination, but as it stands the page is in a desperate state and useless. It currently contains less information than the author's page and replacing it with a redirect would be more appropriate; or if it is to remain, it should be draftified. FromCzech (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Miloš Urban. I'm pretty certain someone who knew where to look could write a properly sourced article about this book itself, but as it's so short, probably better to redirect to the author's page until that day comes. Jdcooper (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zubin Dowlaty

Zubin Dowlaty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. No WP:SIGCOV. Uhooep (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting for the record that this page was "moved" by Rusty Soto from the draft space via copy/paste (diff). While I have no opinion on the page itself (as I have not looked back) re-draftification may be more appropriate given the unilateral non-AFC manner in which this was moved to the Article space. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Lazaroo-Hood

Ross Lazaroo-Hood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessman. No WP:SIGCOV. Uhooep (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting for the record that this page was "moved" by Rusty Soto from the draft space via copy/paste (diff). While I have no opinion on the page itself (as I have not looked back) re-draftification may be more appropriate given the unilateral non-AFC manner in which this was moved to the Article space. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Promo. Most coverage of the dapper-looking fellow is about the Clear Water group, I'd perhaps redirect there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b:, FYI, looks like Clear Water is heading the way of deletion as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO. My own WP:BEFORE has returned only a small number of ROTM pieces in which the subject is mentioned in articles/coverage which are substantively about something else. The same thing is evident in the sources within the article (effectively all of which are news/press-releases about the subject's company or the events that company sponsors). While a redirect might sometimes be appropriate, I personally question whether the company is notable either. That all of these related articles (the subject here, his company, and the event his company sponsors) were created by the same (SPA/PAID/COI?) contributor does very little to help... Guliolopez (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Américo. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Así Es (Américo album)

Así Es (Américo album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems Non-notable Charsaddian (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Américo: Found no additional coverage. Sources on es:Así es (álbum de Américo) are no good (one's just a discography list and the other's an artist bio with only a passing mention of this album). Note that I don't have access to any Chile/Latin America-specific archives, assuming they exist, so there could be plenty of coverage that just isn't archived where I can see it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential keep I am fairly sure this album did receive press coverage to make it worthy enough of an article, but the problem is that these sources are offline and may only be available at Chile's National Library. This album contains probably Americo's most famous song "El embrujo" (the cover of a Peruvian song), and although it was released in 2008, I remember it received some heavy airplay still by 2012. This article on La Tercera only makes a passing mention of "Asi es". "Sus fans suelen seguirlo a todo el país y se saben de memoria su primer disco como solista Américo, Así Es, donde destaca "El Embrujo", su gran éxito" (His fans often track him down all over the country and have memorized his first solo album, Así es, which features his greatest hit "El embrujo"). Another potential source is El Mercurio, but for some time even its search function is behind a paywall I can no longer access it (I used to be a subscriber). This 2016 article also by La Tercera [14] says: "mpartirTras aquel exitoso tándem de discos de Américo, Así es (2008) y A morir (2008), que incluyen los mayores hit del ariqueño -El embrujo, Te vas, o Que levante la mano-, vino el premio mayor: un aplaudido show en Festival de Viña 2010." (After the successful albums of Americo, Así es (2008) and A morir (2008), which include the greatest hits of the Arica man -"El embrujo", "Te vas" or "Que levante la mano"- came his greatest award: a show at Viña del Mar Song Festival 2010). This bio of Americo at Música Popular reads: "En 2007 grabó Así es, donde figuran los singles “El embrujo” (del autor peruano Estanis Mogollón, una de las más escuchadas de ese año) y “Traicionera”, ambos con gran rotación en radios tropicales. [...] Fue en 2008, tras ese éxito reciente de Así es, cuando pasó de ser de una figura a un fenómeno tropical" (In 2007 he recorded Así es, featuring singles "El embrujo" (by Peruvian songwriter Estanis Mogollón, one of the most listened-to songs that year) and "Traicionera", both on heavy rotation at tropical radio stations. [...] It was in 2008, after that recent success of Así es, when [Americo] went from becoming a tropical figure to a phenomenon). --Bedivere (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Américo. I don't necessarily disagree that offline/foreign-language sources may be out there, but even if this album is notable, we have the editorial discretion to cover it "as part of a larger page about a broader topic", as WP:NOPAGE puts it. That's what makes the most sense in this case: we can easily redirect to the singer's article without a substantive loss of information, and the alternative – what NOPAGE describes as "a permanent stub" – isn't desirable for editors or readers. Obviously this calculus would change if someone were actually able to dig up the offline/foreign-language sources discussed above, so if that happens (unlikely but possible), the editor shouldn't hesitate to un-redirect the article and add the additional content. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 23:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dakshayani Velayudhan Award

Dakshayani Velayudhan Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only WP:ROUTINE run-of-the-mill coverage. Not yet achieved notability. Fails WP:INDEPTH. The Doom Patrol (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camlann Medieval Village

Camlann Medieval Village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:AUD, the local coverage this attraction has received is not sufficient to achieve WP:NBUSINESS BrigadierG (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nominator following doing some source analysis I see GNG is met. BrigadierG (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Blatt

Kevin Blatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears like a vanity page WP:COI, contains content that is written like an advertisement. Subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies WP:GNG and doesn't have WP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources. Also as per WP:CREATIVE: The person is 'not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, with no real claim to fame. Does not satisfy criteria for Subjects notable only for one event: WP:BLP1E. Lethweimaster (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Lethweimaster (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article definitely needs improvements, many lines are subjective and definitely appear to come off as a Conflict of Interest (being referred to as a "fixer" seems ostentatious and being known for "outrageous stories" isn't really substantiated) - but he does seem to have a few articles that would constitute significant coverage (at least two where he is the main focus, one of which from Vice, a major news outlet). However, I would agree that he does not fall under the definition of being "regarded as an important figure or widely cited by peers or successors". A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. leaning Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperconnectivity

Hyperconnectivity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Neologistic expanded WP:DICTDEF. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: article started 15 years ago so it's not even a neologism anymore, just a "logism" and an old article. Already exists in Wiktionary: wikt:hyperconnectivity, a better place for it, regardless of notability.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources are valid, the topic exists, and the article is neither misleading nor damaging. It's even interesting and (within its field) passes notability with cites from 2001 to 2012 and a number of years between. There is no real reason to delete it. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Inclined to agree that Wikitonary is likely the better place for this. If the phrase were much more notable it may carve out an exception, but aside from the original paper coining the term it seems to be only used in passing - and it seems that many uses of "Hyperconnected" (and it's variations) are used somewhat independently of any definition set by the individuals mentioned in this page. While there are several citations, most of them seem to be showing evidence of things things like internet-connected refrigerators rather than conferring notability to this phrase. A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this subject is more than just a word to be listed in a dictionary. There are nearly 23k results on Google Scholar and 11k+ on ProQuest. Think we should be able to find more than enough references to support this article. - Indefensible (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then if you have references, post them up per best practice WP:THREE instead of stating they're might be stuff, which is virtually useless. Search quanity result are ignored by admin's as you cant drawn any conclusions from them. scope_creepTalk 10:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Roy's WP:THREE worked, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There are fifteen high-quality sources already cited -- I'd pick Quan-Haase/Wellman (2006) to establish the concept, BBC (2007) to show expanse of relevence, and Spitzer, et al (2004) to show wider use and its critical use in neurophysiology. Indefensible's legitimate point (that there is a lot more out there in addition to the existing sources) simply shows that the article has a lot of room to grow. It's no longer official policy, but wasn't that the whole point of the debate back in 2001 when Larry & Jimbo wrote Rules to Consider point two? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hush the Many

Hush the Many (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability in 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to ESPN Radio. (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN Xtra

ESPN Xtra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't have the WP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources. The only secondary source currently cited in the article doesn't mention ESPN Xtra at all, and I couldn't find much else elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horses Galore

Horses Galore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Morris, Jill (1980-07-17). "Time to saddle up for tips on riding". The Age. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Horses Galore, a new programme from the BBC, begins on Channel 2 at 5 pm Thursday 24 July, is galloping-full of tiny tips for horse care, showjumping skill and training in dressage. In the first programme three young riders are given tips and practice in jumping by former champion equestrian Paddy McMahon; old Bert shows us in detail how to clean a saddle; and we have a sneak early-morning preview of rehearsals for the Musical Drive of the Royal Horse Artillery. 'Horses Galore' is rather like a series of items from 'This Week in Britain', and it constantly refers to the "children" who ride, clean saddles and so on, which is annoying. ... My tip is that 'Horses Galore' will become very popular. Don't miss it that is, if you're not too busy outside grooming your horse."

    2. "Horses galore". Reading Evening Post. 1979-01-05. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "So there is likely to be a big following for the new series of Horses Galore, which starts on BBC1 at 4 45pm this evening. Susan King introduces four special programmes, each one devoted to a particular aspect of horses and horsemanship. The opening programme features on last summer's World Driving Championships held in Hungary."

    3. O'Hara, Monica (1977-09-12). "The ladies really raise the roof!". Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "Over 2,000,000 people ride regularly in Britain, and the figure is increasing annually. Horses Galore (B.B.C.-1, 5.5 morrow) is a new nine week series about horses, presented by Susan King. Each week, she will meet people involved in every aspect of the equine world. Three of her programmes will concentrate entirely on one subject, the others will look at different items. In the first, she visits show jumper Paddy McMahon at his Oxfordshire home and gives tips to amateur riders."

    4. Pacey, Ann (1977-09-11). "Week's TV". Sunday Mirror. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "Horses Galore (BB C-1, 5.5). More than two million people ride horses regularly in Britain, at least half of them children. Fresh-faced and country-wise Susan King introduces this new series about horses, ponies, show-jumping and breeding. But not how to win your way to the stars via the bookmakers. Children will love it."

    5. "Sudworths keeps the heat in". Huddersfield Daily Examiner. 1978-01-31. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "A BBC film crew is expected to arrive on Thursday to take shots of work in progress for the TV programme "Horses Galore." The feature, about junior horse riding, goes out under the production of David Turnbull, who visited the works the other day to prepare for the filming. The presenter is Susan King."

    6. "TV Spotlight". Chester Chronicle. 1978-04-21. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "A record that has stood for 98 years is broken in dramatic fashion in Horses Galore' with Susan King on Friday, April 21 (BBC 1). Susan King witnesses the new record-breaking attempt, masterminded by 81-year-old George Mossman, who acts as coachman. ... From the time the wheels of the coach stop to the time the coach speeds on its way with four new horses in harness takes just 42 seconds."

    7. "Back in Harness". Daily Mirror. 1978-05-09. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "They're off on a super new series of Horses Galore (BBC- 1, 4.40). Susan King visits Hampshire farmer Tom Sampson to see his antique horse-drawn fire-engine in action. In the days before motorised fire engines many houses were saved from destruction by the combination of such engines—and a team of fast horses."

    8. "Courses for Horses". Coventry Evening Telegraph. 1979-01-19. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "Horses Galore (BBC 1, 4.45) ... In this programme, Susan King looks behind the scenes at Stoneleigh, in particular at a sponsored course for promising riders — and promising horses. She also visits the Horse Of The Year Show and she learns how freeze marking may finally frustrate the horse thief."

    9. "Hats off to Major". Daily Mirror. 1979-01-12. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "Producer David Turnbull was chatting to farmer Tom Sampson for Horses Galore (BBC-1, 4.45) when a six-month-old foal gently took hold of Tom's cap in his teeth, and placed it neatly at his feet. The foal, Major, started removing farmer Sampson's cap out of naughtiness.. Now he does it as a party trick. Susan King introduces the programme, which shows carthorses working on farms, taking part in a ploughing match and pulling brewery carts."

    10. "Horse facts and fiction". Coventry Evening Telegraph. 1979-07-25. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "Susan King has been around horses all her life, but it was pure chance that she landed the job of presenting a television programme about her favourite animal. But Susan knows her subject, and in Horses Galore (Pelham, £3-95), the book of the BBC - TV series, she captures the same enthusiasm in print that she did on the small screen. The book, which will appeal to horse lovers of all ages, covers 28 subjects from road safety to the Horse of the Year Show. And the story of how she got the television job is something of a fairy story come true."

    11. "Horses Galore". Lincolnshire Echo. 1979-01-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "In just ten years the National Equestrian Centre at the Royal Showground. Stoneleigh. Warwickshire. has become known as the "University of the Horse," and that is the sub title for Horses Galore' on Friday (BBC 1) Established in 1967. the NEC is dedicated to the care of the horse and rider and is the home for several equestian organisations. Presenter Susan King looks behind the scenes at a sponsored course for promising young riders — and promising horses Susan also visits the Horse of the Year Show and she learns how freeze marking may finally frustrate the horse thief."

    12. "Wednesday". Aldershot News. 1979-05-22. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "4.40-5.05. p.m. - Horses Galore. While breeding thorough-bred horses today is an expensive and carefully thought out business to produce the best possible animal, the most prized breed in the world - the Arabian - has unknown origins. Susan King traces the 5.000-year history of the most influential breed of horse in the world."

    13. "TV Spotlight". Chester Chronicle. 1979-01-26. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "The Junior European Three Day Event is the subject of Horses Galore on Friday, January 26 (BBC1). Presenter Susan King joined the British team at Burghley where they were competing against 14 other countries. While there Susan talked to Bill Thompson, who builds the famous obstacles on the cross country section, Isabel Reid, who manages the junior team, and David Hunt, who trained three of them."

    14. "Watch out for... Wednesday". Aldershot News. 1979-06-12. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "4.40 - 5.10 p.m. - Horses Galore. Tanya Larrigan is Britain's youngest international dressage rider and she has just been selected to represent Britain in the European Team Dressage Championships on her horse Salute. In the last programme of the series, Susan King meets Tanya and gets advice from her for some of the many viewers who have written in with queries."

    15. "Watch out for... Wednesday". Aldershot News. 1979-05-15. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "4.40-5.05 p.m. - Horses Galore. Hay is a better fuel for transport than petrol for a surprising number of South London traders, as Susan King discovers. It's quite surprising how many street traders prefer a horse and cart to a delivery lorry. Jim Bellman has worked with horses since he was a boy and can well remember the days when the streets of London were crowded with horses delivering everything from milk to coal."

    16. "Behind the scenes with Susan King". Reading Evening Post. 1979-08-18. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Many of you will have seen the Horses Galore series on television. Now it has been turned into a book. But did you know that some of the series was made locally at Wokingham? This was the episode featuring competition involving the King family and their ponies. ... The episode at Wokingham featured their Welsh Mountain pony stallion — who has won so many trophies and rosettes that the family have trouble finding somewhere to put them all."

    17. Belsey, James (1981-06-26). "The Best of Horses Galore". Bristol Evening Post. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The Best Of Horses Galore (BBC-1, 5.5) sounds a bit like a mixture of the Derby, Grand National and Horse Of The Year Show. In reality it is Susan King returning with six specially compiled programmes including a selection of her favourite clips from four previous series shown between 1977 and 1979."

    18. "TV and Radio Programmes for This Evening and ... Tomorrow Until Teatime". Evening Sentinel. 1981-06-26. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The Best of Horses Galore. Susan King returns in the first of six specially compiled programmes all about horses and ponies. Tonight Susan rides through the snow in search of a rare Exmoor pony, meets the Banwen Pony Club, 1977 holders of the Prince Philip Cup, and sees a cross country rave in which "wheeled" horse power is tested against the four-leg- ged variety."

    19. Hardcastle, Barbara (1979-08-23). "Facts About Show Jumping. Genevieve Murphy/Deutsch, £2.95 Horses Galore. Susan King Pelham, £3.95". Huddersfield Daily Examiner. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Horses Galore, the book of the BBC TV series of the same name, offers a wide range of equestrian activity. Taking in the renowned Appleby Horse Fair, where gipsies gather from all parts of Great Britain, through the spectacular displays of the King's Troop, named by the late King George VI and retained by the wish of the Queen, the role of the circus horse, brewery drays still used in London by the famed Young's Brewery, there is something to satisfy every horse lover. Profusely illustrated by some fine photographs."

    20. "Get Lost — by the seaside: what's on tonight". Reading Evening Post. 1981-06-26. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Susan King returns in the first of six specially compiled programmes The Best of Horses Galore (BBC1, 5.05pm). The series, all about horses and ponies, includes Susan's favourite selection of films from the four series of Horses Galore shown in 1977, 1978 and 1979. The new series includes a wide selection of equestrian sports and activities in which everyone can take part, whether they own a pony or take lessons at their focal riding school."

    21. "Horses Galore". The Bookseller. No. 3816. 1979-02-10. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "This delightful book is a followup to the popular TV series of the same name, and in it Susan King covers some of the many topics which were featured in the shows. Subjects range from training a racehorse to the Horse of the Year Show. The book also takes a peep behind the scenes in the making of the show. Illustrated in colour and black and white."

    22. "You ask us". The Sunday People. 1979-07-09. Archived from the original on 2023-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-13 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Title, please, of the music in BBC's Horses Galore series, writes D. Keane, of Stockport. Pulstar from the R.C.A. L.P. Albedo 0.39, by Vangelis."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Horses Galore to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that some of these new sources can be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. While numerically, this could be closed as a Keep, the sources are admittedly poor and no improvements have been made to this article during the discussion or further sources unearthed. So, there has been very little follow through by editors wanting to Keep this article to the notability problems pointed out by the nominator and so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holos (software)

Holos (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability To be honest, I have given up on this and fully expect it to be deleted. The current reduced entry is now uninformative and effectively useless, having had mentions removed for both the US patents for its influential COA technology. Apparently, it was notable to USPTO but not Wikipedia.TonyP (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TonyP, your edit appears to have messed with the main Articles for deletion log page (particularly on mobile). Could you remove the "==" or add an additional "==" for your Notability section? Conyo14 (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sources I found so far:
article about Holos use: InfoWorld 22 January 1996 (Volume 18, Issue 4), p. 63
Holos review (1/3 page): InfoWorld 1 March 1999 (Volume 21, Issue 9), p. 63
There are also short news in this magazine eg. about Seagate/Holistic purchase (1 July 1996, p. 37; 4 November 1996, p. 6), or new release (5 August 1996, p. 35)
If there is similar kind of coverage in other magazines of the late 90s, this article may be salvageable. Pavlor (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be some argument here about whether or not reliable sources exist that could establish this article subject's notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I remember it being really high-product and expensive product back in the 90's. Its certainly has historical value as computing history. Unfortunately seagate bought them and crystal reports and horsed both of them. Definently a keep. There should be coverage. scope_creepTalk 10:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you help find more sources maybe? The current ones are really bad and don't suggest the kind of notability you're referring to. Steven Walling • talk 04:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm relisting a third time because there is not a vocal group of editors clamoring for Deletion and an editor has brought up the possibility of a Merger with another article...can that option get some consideration?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Braepark, Edinburgh

Braepark, Edinburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a suburb just a small neighbourhood in Edinburgh fails to meet WP:GNG 1keyhole (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Don't think WP:GEOLAND applies as although populated there is lack of evidence of it being legally recognised. Did consider a redirect/merge to Cramond as it was /(is?) in that parish; however that article concentrates on the coastal Cramond village and looks fairly self-contained. Braepark to the south of Cramond village appears to be the name now in use for the area of an historic estate called Braehead. The article could be expanded with detail on the Braehead Estate [19], the Cramond Old Bridge [20] and the Braehead Mains statue [21]. The article would also be a good reciprocal link to William Houison Craufurd of Braehead. In summary, there's definite potential for this article from a historical angle so I believe a Keep opinion is justified. (If there was nothing to expand the article with and Braepark was merely a modern housing estate on former agricultural land, I would have !voted delete.) Rupples (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taken a further look at this and decided to withdraw Keep !vote. AFAICS Edinburgh Council do not refer to Braepark as a separate neighbourhood. The historical interest features I referred to above are included within a part of Cramond Conservation Area named Cramond Brig. The name "Braepark" only seems to be referenced in property sales. GNG is not satisfied for the name "Braepark". May be best to add the historical detail to Cramond after all. Not sure even a redirect for "Braepark" is required. Rupples (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Hirschkop

Ken Hirschkop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. BLP with no sources, but two external links, neither of which are WP:IS. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Joker (character)#Alternative versions. I'm closing as Merge rather than a simple Redirect because currently there is really very little content in the paragraph readers are being directed to in the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 19:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Joker

Alternative versions of Joker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another unnecessary split from Joker (comics), that is 99% plot summary referenced to comic books. The topic seems to have no stand-alone WP:GNG. Arguably there is also OR issue here - who decides which versions of Joker are "alternative" or "redefined" ("the Joker has been represented in a variety of different stories that redefine elements of the character's appearance and personality")? I am not sure if there is anything that warrants merging or redirecting, but redirects are cheap. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: there's some coverage of the character and his various incarnations in Amazing Heroes, particularly around the publication of Crisis and its' aftermath, though there was stuff on the character throughout (there's a big spike in Batman & Joker articles in '89 around the Tim Burton film). There are a fair few issues on Internet Archive even though there probably shouldn't be. The latter is also true of Wizard, though they were very much more into Marvel and Image, but might be worth a look at for any shiny new 1990s versions. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BoomboxTestarossa It depends whether the coverage is "within universe" in a comic (etc) issue, or whether the coverage is an external and substantial commentary in multiple reliable secondary sources. The former produces either WP:OR o0r WP:SYNTH or both. The latter potentially verifies notability, not of the Joker per se, but of the topic of this article, the alternative versions. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The coverage isn't in-universe, they would be reliable secondary sources. That said I'm not schlepping through back issues (though Back Issue! would be another place to look) for a Big Two article or for an AfD. It's just an illustration that in many areas smashing stuff into Google doesn't really touch upon it. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: After analysing the content and the alleged references, I see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as making up in excess of 90% of this article. It's a great magazine article, because magazines require no verifiability. There is no WP:V here, and that is one of the major tenets of Wikiipedia. Instead there are pseudo-references to issues of Batman comics. These are not independent of the topic. Remember,the article is not about the character The Joker. It is about the variations, the alternative versions.
    To remind us what is required: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
    I do not see references that meet these tough criteria. I only see OR and SYNTH. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Joker (character)#Alternative versions - There doesn't appear to be any significant coverage in reliable sources of the overall concept of alternate versions of the Joker that shows that the topic is notable enough on its own, and the vast majority of the versions listed here are extremely minor, one-shot characters, if even that. Any versions that actually have reliable sources that would indicate any kind of notability should be covered on main article. Since there are currently no non-primary sources in this article, a simple Redirect is sufficient. Rorshacma (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 16:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuji Himukai

Yuji Himukai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why nobody responded to this? Anyways, delete, not notable and near completely unsourced. NegativeMP1 (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 12:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Hill-Gibbins

Joe Hill-Gibbins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 08:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 16:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Heath & Normy Show

The Heath & Normy Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haynes Aero Skyblazer

AfDs for this article:
Haynes Aero Skyblazer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Category indicates it is an abandoned project so doesn't have any expectation of gaining any notability. Fails WP:GNG. Additionally, article was created by the creator of the topic. Perhaps a merger into another article to fulfill WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Zero coverage of any sort, only some hit on a Russian website, which looks sketchy to begin with. Nothing in Gnews or newspapers. Oaktree b (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The CNN Money piece used for sourcing is literally an image caption; the second deletion discussion proposes that there were sources that exited at the time in 2013 (the first one was for a Gsearch which now gives a 404, the second links to the Deseret News site, but the article in question is gone). I'd revisit if we had something more than the Deseret News source (assuming it's even extensive coverage), but I can't find anything. Oaktree b (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Barnes & Barnes.

Robert Haimer

Robert Haimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Known almost exclusively for a single song, so WP:BIO1E perhaps applies. Otherwise fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to An Se-uk. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An Se-wook

An Se-wook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE Karnataka (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources have been found @GiantSnowman. He was the joint head coach of the united Korean youth football team in 1991 which received significant, continuing coverage. Here are multiple instances of coverage: [22], [23], [24], [25], etc. :3 F4U (they/it) 12:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, GiantSnowman, the sources from above are definitely not SIGCOV: 1) merely repeats what Ahn said with zero coverage of him Red XN; 2) is a single trivial mention Red XN; 3) is a rehash of a press release from NK stating it had given Ahn an award, with no SIGCOV of him to boot Red XN; 4) is a trivial mention plus a quote in a news broadcast transcript Red XN. JoelleJay (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay I apologize regarding the first source, I was under the impression that SIGCOV of his coaching strategy was equivalent to SIGCOV of An himself. I've found a more in-depth source about Coach An himself [26]. I'm sure I can find more, there's a lot of sourcing on him. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please find more sources, and in future do not present trivial sources as significant. GiantSnowman 15:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - If he represented during the 1976 Olympics, I'd say he's notable. More citations on him and his coverage is definitely needed though IowaBird (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three deletes, four keeps, and a merge - I don't see a clear consensus here. Relisting for a second time to hopefully garner some more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 11:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, there's already a clear consensus for a merge because the two articles are about the same person. Really what we're discussing here is whether or not both An Se-wook and An Se-uk should be deleted. :3 F4U (they/it) 18:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article in the Korea wikipedia only mentions him, but because he was the coach of a combined Korean team in 1991, he comes up a lot, and not as a WP:BLP1E. He's also from a place where it's difficult to get information about. This will probably always be a stub, but there's enough out there for a good encyclopedia article. It should also be merged - I have no opinion on which article gets merged where, just that we maintain all the information here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - @Liz: if the result is keep, you can close it now. A merger will have to be performed, it's not a question of discussion, there are currently two articles for the same person. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly this. I did already state this above, but we currently have two duplicative articles about the same person (because his name can be romanized in more than one way). :3 F4U (they/it) 13:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 16:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Staffan Jacobson

Staffan Jacobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not the subject of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) A post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism#Staffan Jacobson found no major material.

In searches, do not confuse this author (born 1948) with the Staffan Jacobsson born in 1951, who works in technological research. Our 1948 Jacobson is an art historian that has not been widely regarded or reviewed for his work in that field, apart from one interview source (not used for notability) and one review. The current article focuses on his political background but we don't have any reliable, secondary sources that touch on this as being noteworthy or that warrant redirecting to another article on anarchism in Sweden.

The Swedish version of this article did not have additional sources for us to consider, but please {{ping}} me if you find non-English and offline sources to make a case for the independent notability of this topic. czar 11:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is clear among uninvolved editors. Star Mississippi 23:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cannamedical Pharma

AfDs for this article:
Cannamedical Pharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine business news, PR and interviews for this brochure advertising article. scope_creepTalk 10:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was drafting a contribution to the first AfD when it was closed and the article soft-deleted. While the given sources verify that this is a firm going about its distribution business in its market, I was unconvinced that anything indicated it to be of encyclopaedic notability. Against that, though, were the reference items from FAZ and Handelsblatt: to me these provide verification, but I felt that others may regard such coverage as immediately indicative of notability. I also thought of suggesting draftification of this paid WP:SPA article, but that would shunt the dilemma about notability onto the AfC reviewer. The links posted above by A. B. are interesting in that context, as I see these sources were considered when the request to restore the deleted de.wiki article was rejected in June. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - References do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. In reference to draftification, I review regularly at AfC and would not have sent this to mainspace. Would suggest allowing the AfD to run its course instead. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the refs I looked at earlier aren't quite enough for notability.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allianzwhen, as stated on the WP:DISCLOSE page which I previously linked from your Talk page, "As you have a conflict of interest, you must ensure everyone with whom you interact is aware of your paid status, in all discussions on Wikipedia pages within any namespace." AllyD (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So is a WP:COI editor, then with no interest in following or understanding consensus based notability policy. scope_creepTalk 07:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the two refs above:
Ref 1 [28] This is article built on an interview of Henn, with an image Henn from the company, with information from the company. Its it not independent. It fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 2 [29] Ref 11 in the article. This is PR plain and simple. It states from Henn "We don’t get to see our goods here in the offices. It is delivered directly to a high-security warehouse and shipped from there," It is not independent. It fails WP:ORGIND,. Both of these are classic PR.

Both these references fail WP:NCORP. We will look at the rest of the references shortly. scope_creepTalk 23:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I find this discussion strongly discouraging, and the assumptions that you have made and brought forward are concerning, to be honest.
  • I understand why you want paid editors to disclose, and I believe it's a reasonable thing to do. This is why I disclosed the paid editing according to WP:DISCLOSE. The disclosure should be obvious to the educated editor because it immediately pops up when one hovers over my username with his mouse cursor. I'm conviced that you all are reasonable, knowledgable editors who understand this. Please don't overinterpret Wikipedia's WP:DISCLOSE policy too much by asking paid editors who have disclosed in accordance with the ToU to disclose again every single time they make edits.
  • Please also note that not every single paid editor has "no interest in following or understanding consensus based notability policy". I am well aware of Wikipedia's core principle: It's an encyclopaedia that depicts, in a neutral manner, what is believed to be established knowledge.
  • I strongly recommend reassessing the references that I have provided:
  • The Handelsblatt article includes information derived from an interview of Henn, but it is not based on information from the company. German-language newspaper-like sources don't just copy-paste what they are told, they actually do journalism properly. The data Handelsblatt have used is actually from GKV Gamsi, and that is exactly what the article discloses. The photograph of Henn is obviously licenced from Cannamedical because that makes a lot of sense considering German copyright law. Cannamedical may allow free use of that photograph for journalistic purposes, and this way it is much easier for Handelsblatt to use a decent picture. Do you expect them to have their own photographer who visits eveyone for a quick photoshoot? I trust you know that this would be highly unrealistic.
  • May I please beg your pardon regarding the FAZ? You are saying that FAZ's article is "PR plain and simple". Sorry, I strongly disagree. It should be immediately obvious to any knowledgable person that the FAZ article is not "PR plain and simple" because it is behind a paywall. Nobody in the right mind puts PR behind a paywall. It would have been honest and I would have appreciated if you had said or disclosed or noted that the FAZ article is behind a paywall. I don't wish to allege that you haven't read the FAZ article, but I hope it is understandable why I am in doubt regarding this.

    FAZ have included a direct quote from Henn, yes, but they put it into context and evaluate it. That is what good sources do, they depict what one party says, and what another party says, compare that, evaluate it and put it into context. This is how journalism works. You must not assume that this direct quote is depicted as "the truth" by FAZ, and I assume that every reasonable Wikipedia editor knows this. FAZ are one of the most, if not the most reliable German-language newspaper source, they are, if you will, the "German New York Times". They don't do PR.
  • WP:CORPDEPTH includes examples of substantial coverage, and in this case we have got "ongoing media coverage focusing on [an] organisation", so Cannamedical is notable.
  • Note that the article's original AfD nomination was a violation of Wikipedia's WP:SOCK policy. A German Wikipedia editor logged out of his account to nominate the article for deletion which is obvious from the way the article was proposed for deletion. The actions resemble exactly how on the German language version of Wikipedia an article is proposed for deletion, and the reasoning was typical of how a German Wikipedia editor would propose an article for deletion. It's highly problematic that nobody figured this and that the article was treated as having been prodded.
Regards, --Allianzwhen (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references discussed above have no "Independent Content" and the facts/information are all attributed to people affiliated with the topic company. HighKing++ 16:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and I know what kind of source (WP:SIRS-compliant) is needed here. The core problem becomes apparent when realising that basically everyone's been saying that the sources don't tick WP:SIRS's independence criteria, which is incorrect. The sources discussed above are independent per WP:SIRS, but that may be hard to see. I'm not even blaming anyone here, I know how the perception of FAZ and Handelsblatt not being independent sources comes to be, and I feel it needs some explaining.
    The fact that Handelsblatt or FAZ have interviewed Henn does not mean that Henn uses these sources as a vehicle to convey a message to the reader, or that the sources would even let him do that. Handelsblatt and FAZ are known for their high-quality journalism, and the articles do not include information or facts attributed to people affiliated with the company without fact checking. If you were able to read these sources thoroughly, you'd see that they are in fact not interviews, and that they include only what Wikipedia describes as "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking". The sources (i.e., the writers) aren't affiliated with Cannamedical in any way. If, in an FAZ interview, an interviewed person lies, the FAZ are going to write that straight into their article(s) as they are known for fact checking. They express whether or not they believe (based on fact checking) that claims made in an interview are factually correct.
    The interesting bit here is that the FAZ article actually expresses doubts, discusses legal issues and gives a lot of background information. And it is at this point that I need to ask a serious question: Do you comprehend that Ref 2 refers to the source, but only shows one sixth of its contents? Reading FAZ or Handelsblatt requires a paid subscription as they aren't PR platforms. I honestly wonder how anyone can assess a source by reading only two out of twelve paragraphs. How would you know whether that source has "no independent content" if you cannot even read 85 per cent of it? Please do me a favour and think of this before making premature judgements. Thank you.
    Regards, --Allianzwhen (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a PR. scope_creepTalk 15:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going through the articles (the pieces I can see) and *everything* about the company is attributed to Henn. You say its not an interview - it is. He was interviewed. The articles recount the details of the interview. You say that these statements come with "fact checking" - where does it say that or is this a big assumption on your part? Just FYI, most times the obligations for "fact checking" is to diligently repeat what was said, not to check the veracity of what was said. In this example we're not examining whether the publisher or journalist are independent (as per "functional independence") but whether the information is independent (as per "intellectual independence"). The information must be "clearly attributed to a source unaffiliated to the subject" but all I can see is information attributed to Henn. HighKing++ 21:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You've made an important statement: the pieces I can see. About 5/6 of the source's material is behind a paywall. The FAZ article is not a 200-word PR release, it is an in-depth article about Cannamedical Pharma that extends way further than just 200 words. Nobody puts PR behind a paywall.
    FAZ's article is also not an interview. FAZ have interviewed Henn, and they have cited some bits he said in their article; but that does not make the article an interview. The article just happens to cite Henn right at the beginning which might give the impression that it's an interview, but it is not. The FAZ are known for their fact checking, and they obviously don't do what you describe as "diligently repeat what was said". That would be indicative of poor quality journalism.
    I also know what you refer to as "intellectual independence". Look, the FAZ article cites Henn directly or indirectly on various occasions. But it's not a deep interview or something like that. The article would have worked without citing Henn. Whenever something he has said is used, it is put into context, and everything is explained properly. Henn's "sayings" are not conveyed as facts or "the truth". The article is the author's original text and has intellectual independence. Since the article discusses Cannamedical Pharma, it just made some sense to cite Henn here and there. But that's all.
    Regards, --Allianzwhen (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're making incorrect assumptions about what is being said and I don't think you've correctly grasped the GNG/NCORP requirements (which don't exist on German language Wikipedia anyway). Lets leave aside the paywalled article for the moment (and I'll sign up for the 30day trial if it becomes necessary) since we need *multiple* articles that meet the criteria for establishing notability and I've yet to see even one. Start with the Handelsblatt article. Please point to any paragraph which you say meets ORGIND/CORPDEPTH requirements, that is, contains in-depth (about the company) (CORPDEPTH) original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (ORGIND). I've looked and in my opinion this is regurgitated company bumpf that attributes the information (several times) to Hann. HighKing++ 10:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Following from my Comment at the outset of this discussion, I feel that for an article on a firm to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability, more is needed than verifiable statements that at a particular time it had a quarter of a local import/manufacture/distribution market, be that in cannabis, Kimchi, cogs, or whatever. Proportionate presence would be fine for a Semdor / Cannamedical entry on a categorised business listing site under Medical cannabis suppliers > Germany >, but an encyclopaedia is distinct from that, and I see no claim to notability here (and although each wiki evolves its own inclusion criteria, the rejection at de.wiki is informative). There is also no article (here or on de.wiki) on the Semdor Pharma parent, and, trying an alternative perspective, the articles on Medical cannabis and Cannabis in Germany describe these markets in a non-vendor-specific manner, so there appears to be no appropriate redirect target. AllyD (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 EAFF E-1 Football Championship

2024 EAFF E-1 Football Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two sources listed in this article is about the 2022 EAFF E-1 Football Championship and no reliable source of 2024 EAFF E-1 Football Championship can be found. Qby (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • PROD is not a better solution, as you can't PROD an article if it's the subject of an AFD. Also, most of the time, a PROD gets removed without fixing anything, and then you start and AFD anyway.
  • Move to draftspace as WP:TOOSOON, and it doesn't currently demonstrate that it passes WP:GNG. The fact other articles in the series exist is not a good enough reason to keep this a year before the event, as per WP:OSE. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. We have a policy on this kind of article at WP:CRYSTAL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. I'm not seeing evidence of notability in the article, nor evidence that it is "almost certain to take place". CRYSTAL also stipulates that topics are generally inappropriate if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. The GSA source doesn't appear particularly reliable, and the piece of information extracted ("The finals were originally scheduled to be held in South Korea.") is probably original research under WP:SYNTH, so the CRYSTAL provision applies; this is an inappropriate topic for now. On the other hand, there's a decent chance this will become an appropriate topic, and the existing work is usable for an article in the future, so draftification seems appropriate. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 11:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 15:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political economy of oil in Angola

Political economy of oil in Angola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note on the page for many years about unencyclopedic style. Interested to hear whether others think the topic meets the GNG - my view is that even if it does, this page needs WP:TNT because it can't really be salvaged and has been left like this for way too long. JMWt (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 15:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of National Studies of Tiaret

Institute of National Studies of Tiaret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find any other references other than the passing mention on the page. It doesn't sound like a particularly large or notable collection of books. Seems like we need better refs that show that it meets the GNG and that the details can in fact me verified. JMWt (talk) 09:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I looked all over, including Wikipedia articles for Tiaret in French and both our major Arabic projects. French Wikipedia's article on the local university, fr:Université Ibn Khaldoun de Tiaret, doesn't mention it. I went to the University's French site and didn't see anything however they don't seem to have a site search capability. I would say to redirect to Tiaret or to a University article but I'm not sure this place exists other than one sentence in an encyclopaedia I have not heard of. It may also be independent of the University any way.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Grenada#Economy. I'm not sure that this is the best Merge target but I go no response to my Relisting comment so I'm just selecting the option most often mentioned here. I hope the editor responsbie for the Merge will use their best judgment. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grenada and the International Monetary Fund

Grenada and the International Monetary Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article as it stands is sourced either to Wikipedia, to non-independent sources, or to sources with no significant coverage of the supposed subject. WP:BEFORE doesn't show much that couldn't simply be merged to Grenada#Economy at absolute best. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article would have to be be entirely supported on the first source then JMWt. As I said in the nomination, I don't see a reason for an independent article; the second would be far better served being used in Grenada#Economy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's an opinion. As far as I'm concerned in the main we are trying to think about policy, and I can't really see a good reason why there is a lack of notability of a page describing a country's relations with the IMF - when there is academic study describing it as important. JMWt (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - other than the notability question, this is a very encyclopedic article. The IMF is a reliable source; the question is independence for reliability purposes; I could possibly be persuaded that it's sufficient.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The IMF sources fall into the category of "reliable but not independent"; in a case like this, it is valid for use in the article, but I'm not sure you could judge notability merely on that. On the other hand, the Kirton source above seems to indicate there is more likely to be notability than not (though it is quite outdated). Curbon7 (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7: personally I don't see how an economic analysis of four/five months in 1983 to be sufficient to establish notability; why do you? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I was getting at, and perhaps did not explain well-enough, is that a 23-page scholarly analysis in a reputable journal is an indication that there may be other similar sources (granted, 1983 was a hell of a year for Grenada); I was not making a definitive statement that it alone establishes notability. Curbon7 (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness there are more recent academic journal papers describing the longer term impacts of the IMF intervention. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is well-written and encyclopaedic. I think it passes GNG easily as written and the only real problem is a lack of sources. I believe that Curbon7's argument toward RSs-yet-to-be-found is also valuable. I do not think that deletion will improve Wikipedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, we have an editor arguing to Keep this article and ones advocating a Merge, either to Economy of Grenada or to Grenada#Economy. Any last thoughts about this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Muhammad Naufal Zidan

Murder of Muhammad Naufal Zidan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A single criminal case of murder, a short-term hot issue. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the issues with this article, this process seems all wrong.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B. I agree to some extent, but what's a better way to handle these local current events articles? While shocking, and newsworthy today, there's no guarantee this story will be notable in a week or two. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be a lot of harm in keeping it up and discussing on the talk page.
I thought draftify was a good solution. Is that too harsh? What's the harm?
Note that on reflection, I'm not sure WP:TOOSOON is quite right. Probably WP:NOTNEWS is better. Oblivy (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oblivy, at this point, I don't have an opinion about what to do with the article. My point has to do with:
  • Giving the author time to get something done
  • Communicating using the talk page
  • Basic respect for another editor
So I don't agree or disagree with your approach. I'm just calling out what I think is an improper, impatient rush to AfD.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the nomination being premature. Unfortunately unless withdrawn an AfD is almost unstoppable. But I'll take a lesson from your comments and try to raise the talk page point if a case like this arises in the future. Oblivy (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I revoked my draftify vote to remove any barrier to closing this discussion. This article may someday need another look, but for now it's well sourced and I see no issue leaving it up.Oblivy (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw as premature per all of the above.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. While !vote count is close, there has been no policy-based rebuttal regarding the lack of significant coverage. Arguments pointing to the content of Wikipedia articles or internal Wikipedia searches are of zero merit. signed, Rosguill talk 04:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EMY Africa Awards

EMY Africa Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This isn't going to be easy, but I do have the feeling it will be essential to avoid a flood of Ghanaian COI/UPE BLPs. This 'award' is a self-fueling entity, a business venture that publishes a magazine on the back of the award. On top of this core Awards article, we now have new articles being created about 2021 awards winners, 2022 awards winners etc etc. There is no evidence of notability to the awards, no independent oversight or committee and no entity backing them other than the commercial company that runs them for profit. It all has to go. The complete lack of SIGCOV from RS helps make that case. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like clear self-promotion to me. Rhombus (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rhombus, can you explain why you tag this article as "self-promotion" ? Siagoddess (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Gordon (hot dog vendor)

AfDs for this article:
Hal_Gordon_(hot_dog_vendor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a relevant figure. This article was written in jest to depict an individual who is not noteworthy in any capacity. This individual is simply a graduate student who has done work as a hot dog vendor during sports games. Azakrzewska (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG through articles in independent media (KQED, Mercury News, SFGATE) over two different baseball seasons. And a quote in the NY Post. Oblivy (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to meet WP:GNG with the sources in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that the nominator created his account six hours ago and has no contributions to Wikipedia outside of this AfD. Alvaldi (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we're going to insist on a standard of notability, GNG, that is based on how much media coverage a topic has rather than on how significant the topic is, we should not be surprised when that causes us to include some topics that have plenty of in-depth media coverage but are not in any way significant. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. Oblivy (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't want to help someone out whose first edit was an AfD nom, but he appears to fail WP:BLP1E - a living person, otherwise low-profile, notable for a singular insignificant event - and BLP1E is a part of NOT, which does trump GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He is notable for being an unofficial mascot of a major sports team for several years, that is not the same as being notable for a single event. Alvaldi (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See the guidance at WP:PSEUDO. There's no reason we can't discuss him elsewhere though. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You know that's an essay, not a notability guideline, right? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As David points out, WP:PSEUDO is an essay but regardless the subject passes its suggested tests as reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage. Also, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply as he not known from being involved in a single event (i.e. a single game or a playoff series), his notability stems from his career as an unoffical mascot of the team for several years. And he passes WP:GNG as he has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject over a period of several years. Alvaldi (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I know it's an essay and not a guideline. But you still haven't argued WP:BLP1E isn't met. Reliable sources cover him only in the context of a single event, he is likely to remain low-profile, and the event itself - being a hot dog vendor - isn't substantial. WP:BIO1E states Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. I think this easily qualifies - I understand I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but just because WP:GNG is met doesn't end the analysis: we still have to consider WP:NOT. SportingFlyer T·C 12:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If all that was written about him was that he sold a hot dog to some celebrity, that he fell down the stairs at a game or that he sold a record amount of hot dogs during a game, then yes, I would fully agree that he failed WP:BLP1E. But that is not the case as this popular figure has gained significant notice as an unofficial mascot due to his entertaining acts during his work as a hot dog vendor of a major professional sports team over multiple years that spans multiple events. An over decade long career, regardless of it being a hot dog vendor, laywer, professional athlete, doctor or an artist, cannot be considered a single event for quite obvious reasons and there are enough sources that cover his whole career outside of any single event he participated in, for instance [30][31][32] Regarding WP:NOT, I'm not seeing anything particular there that the article goes against. Alvaldi (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the WP:BLP1E claims are invalid and nonsenical because this person served as an unofficial mascot for SEVERAL SEASONS. That's hundreds of "events." Several pieces of coverage of this person, spanning a period of over four years, are already present on the page. While they may not be the best coverage based on WP:GNG guidelines, there is certainly enough for the article to be kept. Per WP:NBIO, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Carson Wentz (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (N.b., I was the original author of this article) There is no rule that says that people who sell hot dogs are (or aren't) notable. But WP:GNG and in particular WP:BIO spell out the requirements for notability. In this case, there are multiple articles from independent and reliable sources which cover the subject. In particular, he is the central focus of a number of these articles; a person who receives multiple biographical profiles in the major media outlets of a metropolitan area clearly passes WP:GNG. As for WP:BLP1E, as Alvadi remarks, "being a hot dog vendor" is not a single event; "people notable for one event" and "people notable for one thing" (e.g., one job they had) are two very different ideas — if having a job were an event, then many people would be notable for one "event." BLP1E would be applicable if he only were known for a single incident (e.g., selling a particular hot dog). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Coverage has lasted more than four years, so it's more than One-Event coverage. Very few hot dog vendors will be notable; this one is. (no WP:PROF pass though). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agnesium

Agnesium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NEO. This article was proposed for deletion here [33] and was removed by the page's creator, User:Perry Schugart. There is apparently a Perry Schugart associated with a company called Agnesium Marketing, but I can't find any more references to this word than that company and the book cited in the article. I don't have access to the book. Closhund/talk/ 06:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination and my own ref check. Impressive results: 100s of instances of magnesium misspelled.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Wiktionary. I'll try my first transwiki-redirect Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randan

Randan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two sentence substub based on old (1911) Britannica entry (effectively unchanged since creation in 2005), with the second sentence being some weird discussion of effectively unknown etymology - major issues with WP:DICTDEF and WP:GNG, likely a rare synonym for something we already have covered or old and obsolete technical term for niche vehicle of dubious notability (redirect targets welcome). Linked from only two articles, both using the same text (Moritz Immisch/electric boat: After 12 months of experimental work starting in 1888 with a randan skiff, the firm commissioned the construction of hulls which they equipped with electrical apparatus.). Can this be rescued? My BEFORE found nothing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment picture https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/boats--327214729170093088/ Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moritz Immisch electrified a 'randan skiff'. Here is 'triple skiff or randan'. [34] 'Randan skiff' was painted in Victorian times. Four men travel with a randan [35]. Xx236 (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps include into 'Skiff#Traditional boats—United Kingdom? Xx236 (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term could be mentioned there, probably. Might be a better redirect target than wiktionary if someone adds it there with reference. WP:BEBOLD! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I !voted to redirect to Wiktionary but I'm fine with this alternative, too.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of foiled right-wing terrorist attacks

List of foiled right-wing terrorist attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a POV fork of List of terrorist incidents. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other terrorist incidents. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to List of terrorist incidents. AlanStalk 06:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete curses! Foiled again! (In all seriousness “Failed” or even “thwarted” would be far less WP:POV but it’s a WP:FORK of a dead article) Dronebogus (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Charan

Subhash Charan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:GNG. He is the owner of a non-notable educational institution. Additionally, the books he wrote aren't notable. The article mostly promotes his institution and courses, and all of the sources given are sponsored posts. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 06:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are multiple news sources in the article covering the subject, the coaching and the startup. "and all of the sources given are sponsored posts" is incorrect. Krayon95 (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all sources have disclaimers, and all this content is distributed by ANI/PNN to all other news websites. ANI/PNN is a leading PR and news distribution company in India. Tomorrow, I will post a detailed review of all sources. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 17:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, please draftify, so can improve later. Krayon95 (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this subject does not adhere to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so there is no valid reason to consider it for draftification. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 11:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable, and as per nom. User4edits (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non of the sources given show notability. I've given a detailed analysis of the sources below -- Sohom (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of sources
- gkhub.in gkhub.in is not a reliable/idependant source
- aninews.in This is press release propagated via ANI News, not indepedent coverage.
- bhaskar.com 1 This is again a press release, not independant
- businessworld.in Same ANI press release/PR as aninews.in, not independant
- balotratimes.com I have never come across balotratimes.com, however, reading through this article first few does not inspire confidence in its impartiality, I would assume this is some sort of content written by somebody associated with (a pupil of) the subject
- bhaskar.com 2 These are a bunch of press releases talking about donations/good deeds during the COVID-19 times, I don't see a mention of the subject?
-timeofindia.com There is one fleeting mention of the platform created by the subject, I don't see how this is indepedent significant coverage.
- economictimes.indiatimes.com This doesn't seem to about the subject itself (It is behind a paywall so I cannot read all of the article)
- mid-day.com mid-day.com is unreliable, and the story is clearly labelled "partnered content", definitely not independant
- vccircle.com I don't think vccircle.com is a reliable outlet in this context. Also, this does read a lot like company PR, since it heavily leans on "the company says so" instead of relying on their own editorial voice "The company did this"
- expresscomputer.in This is also a press release, not independant coverage
- cnbctv18.com This article is mostly a list of press releases from various companies.
- bhaskar.com 3 This is not related to the subject at all
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Beyer

Karen Beyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG Sabih omar 05:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I see the consensus among editors here to be that this article is a POV fork and should be Deleted. However, I am open to Userfying the content of the article. But if it is then just moved into main space with further review, it can legitimately be tagged for CSD G4 speedy deletion.

I hope this AFD discussion closure doesn't impact the efforts being made at Dispute Resolution as this disagreement is not simply about this one article but the approach editors are taking towards writing about a potentially contentious subject. That discussion, which I looked over, should continue. Liz Read! Talk! 04:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Witchcraft (traditional)

Witchcraft (traditional) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a SYNTH. This topic is already covered in relevant articles. Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I realized I didn't answer the original WP:SYNTH complaint. While I created this article from pieces of other articles, no individual claim is synthesized outside the cited material. The framework for this article as independent from other article topics comes from Hutton,[1] Bonewits,[2] and others, who not only acknowledge types of witchcraft beyond “diabolical” and “neopagan,” but generally list this specifically as one of those types. I understand that others don’t recognize that these “additional” definitions for witchcraft exist, but the idea of a non-neopagan non-diabolical witch is present in reliable sources without any synthesis. [3][4][5] -- Darker Dreams (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether or not the current main witchcraft article remains as is or is made more broad, it is clear in reliable sources there are more definitions / usages for the term than are being fully covered in that article. While Witchcraft (diabolic) was arguably a repetition of the current witchcraft main article topic, which I now understand to be a major part of the disagreement, this article is an attempt to give space to one of the usages outside of that conflict. This method was considered fine for Neopagan witchcraft. I am unclear what POV you believe that I am pushing. If you think my POV is that there are definitions beyond "diabolic" and "pagan," then you should read the repeatedly provided quotes from sources you were using which explicitly state that. No "righting great wrongs," simply trying to cover sourced material. Darker Dreams (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CONSPLIT Sometimes two or more distinct topics may share the same base title or similar titles [...] Sometimes the distinct topics may be closely related [...] When two or more distinct topics with the same or a similar titles are being written about on the same page, even if they are closely related, a content split may be considered. WP:DEL-CONTENT Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. WP:WIKIVOICE Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view. It means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Darker Dreams (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:A10 - we don't need half a dozen parenthetically disambiguated pages about witchcraft because a clutch of scholars often some academic opinions about the different categories of classification that can be applied to the subject. Hutton, in the source quoted above, makes clear what the main scholarly consensus is. That's exactly the sort of material that should be hosted on the base name page. That parenthetical disambiguation is used here is indicative of the fact that no term to naturally distinguish, while the obviously separate Neopagan witchcraft is already readily distinguished. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note about A10: the title is "a plausible redirect", imo. But not to Witchcraft as it now stands (since that is about malevolent witchcraft: see ongoing dispute resolution). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Conversation has now been started (not by me) about the length of Witchcraft and whether it needs to be split into sub pages just on that basis. Talk:Witchcraft#Article_length. Darker Dreams (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - different topic than witchcraft, which is about "Worldwide historical and traditional views of witchcraft", while this one seems intended to be about the witchcraft itself rather than views of it. Possibly there is some other article it could be merged into, or more likely, there are articles or article sections that should be merged here. Still I don't think it's a fork, so those arguments should be dismissed. Skyerise (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Comment But keep the discussion going. Witchcraft is over 11000 words long and still incomplete. AFD should not be a place to prevent long articles from being split. It sounds like there needs to be further discussion in that topic area about how to cover the broad worldwide history of witchcraft in multiple articles. I'm not even remotely an expert on Eastern Slavic traditions of witchcraft, but even I can tell from reading the Witchcraft article that it's woefully underrepresented in that article and not given WP:DUE weight. I see other under-representation as well, including many cultures primarily represented by witch-hunts with little to no mention of traditional cultural understanding of witchcraft. It seems like this article is in part an attempt to remedy those types of concerns. I'm hopeful that editors with more knowledge in that domain can figure out the right solution.
As an aside, as an outsider to this topic area, I'd lean toward splitting on cultural traditions rather than "categories" of witchcraft, with plenty of wikilinks back and forth where there is overlap, influence, or similarity documented in secondary sources. —siroχo 08:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with Skyerise that Witchcraft is about "Worldwide historical and traditional views of witchcraft", while this article is about "the witchcraft itself". CorbieVreccan insisted on copying the "systemic bias" and "unbalanced" templates over to this article. As Witchcraft stands, with its overarching and biased theme of witchcraft being malevolent according to scholarly consensus, that article does deserve those templates, but this new article treats the topic much differently and does not deserve those tags. This all started as ownership of the Witchcraft article, and a hostile WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which now extends over multiple satellite articles, disambiguation pages, redirects, and templates. This nomination is a continuation of these ongoing hostilities. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also concerned about ongoing changes to the article which should be aimed at improving the article. Is Asarlaí's recent edit (now backed-up by the AfD nominator, CorbieVreccan) with the summary "added more sources, and quotes from existing sources, which undermine the whole premise of this article" meant to indicate good faith, or an attempt to deliberately undermine the creative process? This is surely inappropriate behaviour. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Esowteric, please assume good faith. I've looked at the "recent edit" changes you linked in your edit directly above this comment, and I see them as improvements to the sources; the changes also attribute certain statement to specific authors, adds page numbers, clarifies quotes and improves sourced content. Respectfully, it will help if we all stop looking at this as a hostile us-versus-them polarized situation and look through a neutral lens. Netherzone (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you're characterizing an edit summary self-describing as "[...] undermine the whole premise of this article"[41] as "good faith?" - Darker Dreams (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was not more clear - I am not describing the edit summary, I am describing at the actual content of the edit itself that was linked above as "Asarlaí's recent edit." The edit itself was a good faith edit that improved the article. Netherzone (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not clear. My point was; doesn't the edit summary indicate the intent of those edits? We can have a discussion about what was done with the citations, and some of that is fine. But, if we do that we also need to have a discussion about some of the changes made with that edit to article content. Changes that go beyond citation improvement and do not inherently required by the changes in citation... which also seem to support the intent stated in the edit summary. I'm confused how some improvements to citation outweigh stated intent and additional aspects of the edit to make it "good faith." - Darker Dreams (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably better not to dwell on hypothetical intentions rather than focusing on the actual content in the edit. Netherzone (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained my edit on the article talkpage, here. – Asarlaí (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bordering on Speedy per WP:POVFORK. Comment - Please see discussion below. I cannot find a single thing in this article or its approach to the topic that does not belong in primary article. If it is meant as a WP:CONSPLIT, the editor has approached it in a very WP:SYNTH manner and WP:A10 probably applies. The differentiation between the articles is not apparent from the lede (or the body, imo). If you want to split Witchcraft, the natural place is the geographical section that is roughly half the article. If Esowteric's assertion that this is about "the witchcraft itself" is valid (which I doubt), this article needs a serious dose of TNT and a title change to something like Witchcraft (practice). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edit warring: There is an ongoing edit war between CorbieVreccan (AfD nominator and involved admin, opposing changes and issuing 3RR warnings) and Darker Dreams (article creator, attempting to improve the article). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Darker Dreams has repeatedly reverted several of us, to insert material (witchcraft as "traditional knowledge"), that is not in the sources, and to remove RS sourced content. Darker Dreams is even going against what they agreed to on the talk page of Witchcraft - that it is uncontested/consensus that Indigenous people do not use the neopagan redefinition of "witchcraft".[42] Your statement that Darker Dreams' disruption is "attempting to improve the article" is heavily POV and incorrect, even by what Darker Dreams agreed to. I am sick of DD wasting all of our time with this. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on a review of the actions of various editors, including the edit war commentary here, I withdraw my Delete !vote. I believe that the entire group of witchcraft-related articles requires mediation and that no valid AfD consensus on one article is attainable or reasonable. I believe that the articles' content as well as their focus, their conceptualisation, and their structure are problematic in the extreme. The behaviour of their editors is even more unsettling. IMO, this clearly POVFORK article may actually be naught more than a symptom of WP:OWN behaviour and inflexibility on all sides. If mediation fails, I think that this article should be deleted and that Witchcraft should be TNTed to cover witchcraft in its entirety, not the article's "good versus evil" dichotomy artificially imposed upon it.

References

  1. ^ Hutton, Ronald (2017). The Witch: A History of Fear, from Ancient Times to the Present. Yale University Press. What is a witch? [...] Anglo-American senses of it now take at least four different forms, although the one discussed above seems still to be the most widespread and frequent. The others define the witch figure as any person who uses magic ... or as the practitioner of nature-based Pagan religion; or as a symbol of independent female authority and resistance to male domination. All have validity in the present, and to call anybody wrong for using any one of them would be to reveal oneself as bereft of general knowledge, as well as scholarship. ... [I]n this book the mainstream scholarly convention will be followed, and the word used only for an alleged worker of such destructive magic.
  2. ^ quoting by way of Adler Adler, Margot (2006). Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today. New York City: Pinguin Press. p. 40. "Is a "witch" anyone who does magic or who reads fortunes? Is a "witch" someone who worships the Christian Devil? Is a Witch (capital letters this time) a member of a specific Pagan faith called "Wicca"? Is a "witch" someone who practices Voodoo, or Macumba, or Candomblé? Are the anthropologists correct when they define a "witch" as anyone doing magic (usually evil)outside an approved social structure?" Bonewits does away with some of this confusion, as we shall see, by dividing Witches into many types[...]
  3. ^ Lawrence, Salmah Eva-Lina (2015). Witchcraft, Sorcery, Violence: Matrilineal and Decolonial Reflections. Australian National University Press. I challenge the notions that witchcraft and sorcery invariably lead to violence, that there is only one type of witchcraft and sorcery, and that what is labelled witchcraft and sorcery in English is entirely superstitious nonsense. [...] Despite early Christianisation, belief and practice of witchcraft continues to be prevalent in this primarily matrilineal province. Even outside the province, the flying witches of Milne Bay are legendary and Milne Bay itself has been described anecdotally as the witchcraft centre of [Papau New Guinea]. In contrast to other chapters from PNG in this volume which speak of witchcraft and sorcery accusations that generate brutal violence on the accused, violence against women is much less in this province where witchcraft is highly articulated, and it is said to empower and contribute to the status of Milne Bay women.
  4. ^ Kouvola, Karolina (2020). "Travellers, Easter Witches and Cunning Folk: Regulators of Fortune and Misfortune in Ostrobothnian Folklore in Finland". Journal of Ethnology and Folkloristics. 14 (1): 121–139. doi:10.2478/jef-2020-0008. Certain people, sometimes named but frequently referred to simply as trollgubbe 'witchman' or kloka gumma, 'wise woman', had special knowledge enabling them to carryout important and necessary supranormal tasks in the community. These people, also called cunning folk in the academic literature, were respected by their local communities for their skills in healing (37/299) and other matters (57/299) that required specialised knowledge (see also Midelfort 1974: 195–196). They are referred to in the archived material as trollkunniga or trolldomskunniga 'skilled in witchcraft', which does not translate well into English. Words such as trollkarl, trollkäring and trollgubbe are used in the data for different groups of people, both ingroup and outgroup. The informants do not make clear which of these pose a threat to the community, and which do not, and for this reason I would rather consider the word neutral without strong connotations.
  5. ^ Moro, P.A. (2017). Witchcraft, Sorcery, and Magic. In The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology, H. Callan (Ed.). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1915 “the term witch has a bifurcated use similar to that of shaman, with scholarly consensus diverging from some popular adoption. Even among anthropologists, some use the terms witch and sorcerer, like shaman, widely—as broad labels that help make sense of patterns in the ethnographic literature—while others reserve them for more narrowly delineated, geographically or historically specific examples.”
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was no consensus‎. I closed the previous AFD as Redirect which was later undone. This time, there is more advocacy for Keeping this article. Those seeking to Redirect this article can propose this on the article talk page but this discussion needs to be closed. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire

AfDs for this article:
Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was recreated but still doesn't meet WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage from multiple, reliable secondary sources. The subject doesn't get a pass at WP:NPOL due to never sitting in the House of Lords.

The only piece of significant coverage for this individual comes from a local newspaper. A source assessment follows. See also the previous AfD for a review of other sources.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pilaz
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Marquess of Downshire" in Debrett's Peerage (Debrett's, 2019), pp. 2398–2402 No passing mention ✘ No
"The Marquess of Downshire", The Daily Telegraph, 25 February 2004, accessed 13 February 2023 (subscription required) No passing mention ✘ No
Chris Berry, "Influence from high places to bang the rural drum", The Yorkshire Post, 2 August 2014, accessed 13 February 2023 Yes significant coverage, but only local coverage ? Unknown
"Downshire, 9th Marquess of, (Arthur Francis Nicholas Wills Hill) (born 4 Feb. 1959) company director and landowner" in Who's Who online edition, accessed 13 February 2023 (subscription required) No WP:PRIMARY - written by the subject of the article and equal to a self-published source, per WP:RSP consensus No not reliable per 2022 RfC ✘ No
Annabel Sampson, "Why Harrogate is the chic capital of the north", Tatler, 31 March 2021, accessed 13 February 2023 No no mention of the subject ✘ No
Grace Newton, "Clifton Castle: Privately owned stately home in the Yorkshire Dales to open its gardens to the public this weekend", The Yorkshire Post, 10 June 2022, accessed 13 February 2023 No passing mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Pilaz (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Yes, never a member of the House of Lords, so it's just a question of WP:N and the GNG. Agreed that Who's Who does not count towards notability, but the articles in The Yorkshire Post do. The Tatler article does in fact mention the subject, as "the Marquess of Downshire" is this one. Not much there, but it verifies something in the article, which is what references do. Debrett's is independent of the subject and has editors. As I see it, he meets the test of WP:N, which is about verifiability and not importance. If the page is not kept, it is all relevant to Marquess of Downshire, a notable subject, and should be merged there, with a redirect, as the present peer is an integral part of that history. Moonraker (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with Debrett's is the lack of WP:SIGCOV: you get a name, title, DOB and descendants on p. 2999, and that's it. This is routine information, hardly "more than a trivial mention". Even The Guardian agrees that this source is "a bible stripped back to its begats. Outsiders can be frustrated by the lack of the colourful narratives that they suspect must be behind a lot of the begetting." Debrett's also cannot count towards the GNG because it is not a secondary source: it's a tertiary source, much like other reference work. Pilaz (talk). 10:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Family coverage on Wikipedia should only be included to support an already notable topic, so it seems odd to consider a WP:TERTIARY source like Debrett's with no SIGCOV enough. Pilaz (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one local piece with non-trivial coverage is not enough for GNG. Edit: Redirect. JoelleJay (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay you agree then that The Yorkshire Post is non-trivial coverage. It is a regional rather than local newspaper, and the GNG does not distinguish between national, regional, and local sources, so the question is whether it is a reliable source, and it meets all the tests. Pilaz says it is "significant coverage". And then there is Debrett's Peerage, which has biographies as well as genealogy. Pilaz does not dispute its reliability, and I agree, but there is a misunderstanding in the words "passing mention", as Debrett's has nearly half a page about the subject of the article, which is not trivial. NB, what the GNG requires is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and defines "significant coverage" as — "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Moonraker (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to have access to it, what does Debrett's actually say beyond his genealogy, and is that info non-routine? WP:N requires article subjects also pass NOT. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay it's a short biography. I would say more, but the copy I have access to is in a library in Oxford and I am in a different place now. Moonraker (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Moonraker and from what I gather this is an active and notable person, much of the deletionist view is nitpicking about the importance and nature of sources. His activities are better sourced than the political careers of some elected hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Killuminator (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, if we are nitpicking, you can tell us which sources help satisfy the GNG. Unless you are just arguing WP:ITSNOTABLE + WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Pilaz (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could have done that but I'm not going to given your second sentence. Killuminator (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could have been helpful for the !keep case, because right now the rough consensus is that there's only one source which passes the GNG, which is the Yorkshire Post. Pilaz (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnos (record label)

Hypnos (record label) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local business that do not satisfy WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Not a satisfying conclusion for anyone, I might imagine, but a consensus has not formed, and I do not have confidence that any further relisting would lead to one. While there have been substantial concerns raised whether this list can be appropriately scoped, there is not enough support to form a consensus for outright deletion. I would very much encourage the participants here to discuss ways to address the concerns many editors raised during the discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamist terrorist attacks

List of Islamist terrorist attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a POV fork of List of terrorist incidents and a mess of WP:OR. Many of the citations used don't refer to the person/s carrying out any of the attacks as being Islamic. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased or original research belongs in List of terrorist incidents along with all other terrorist incidents. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to List of terrorist incidents. AlanStalk 09:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Note that List of right-wing terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Information icon Note that List of left-wing terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Information icon Note that List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

I didn't realize I voted twice here. Conyo14 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Dunamo. 208.87.236.201 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked IP. TarnishedPathtalk 16:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are a couple of IPs above. One has only ever edited in this AfD and the Sandbox. The other IP has been blocked in the past as it was determined to be an open proxy. AlanStalk 00:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the topic is notable on all levels and pertains to a highly noteworthy feature of security threats to millions of people around the world. Many of the assertions made in favour of deletion are specious including one commentator stating that the term used for the title is problematic (when it is supported by very many books and publications over the last few decades) and another concluding inaccurately that the first three entries are representative of the remaining 100+ in the list.--Scootertop (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete such a list is indiscriminate. Most of the coverage focuses on Islamic terrorist attacks on western targets, but the vast majority of targets by Islamic terrorism is against other Muslim/Middle eastern targets, due to geographic and security considerations. Would such a Wikipedia ever convey that weight is dubious because of the WP:OR research concerns. I am persuaded by similar arguments at Left/right wing terrorist AfD discussions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as a list with poorly defined scope. The boundaries between Islamic religious terrorism and terrorism committed by Muslims and violence committed in the name of Islam that isn't necessarily terrorism are extremely blurry. There are plentiful sources about each of those topics, and our page on Islamic terrorism can explore that nuance, but the material is very poorly suited to a list. The AfDs for left- and right-wing terrorism are an entirely different case; those were ostensibly about phenomena, not lists of incidents, and we do have a comparably article on the phenomenon. A lot of the "keep" votes above are applying arguments from different topics that are not sufficient to justify this list specifically. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't follow any logic in your argument. The sources used in the list aren't "blurry". We don't delete articles on WP because they need improvement and you haven't made any recommendations. 212.26.68.44 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It means that most terrorism is perpetrated based on complex blends of motives that often don't readily lend themselves to sloppy editorial pigeonholing and broad-brush generalization. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Islamist terrorism is a notable topic with many incidents to list. It is certainly more clearly defined in scope than, say, List of foiled right-wing terrorist attacks. --Local hero talk 02:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Local hero, interesting that you mention that list. Someone else mentioned in another AfD that it should be examined for the same concerns which have so far led to three other lists similar to this one being voted to be deleted. AlanStalk 05:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So go vote on that too, and judge by individual merit here, per WP:WAX. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Local hero:, you're quite right that Islamic terrorism is a notable topic, and there are incidents that are unquestionably Islamic terrorism that we can and do mention there. This, however, isn't that article; this is a list of events that supposedly constituted Islamic terrorism, and it isn't a list we can ever have clear inclusion criteria for. I note that the other list you mention was deleted, for similar reasons. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete/ Redirect: At a bare minimum, this article needs WP:TNT. It has gone off the rails by including incidents that were not clearly motivated by religious extremism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't intend to !vote twice, but my basic views on this are still the same.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I presumed you didn't mean it. I'd suggest you strike one of your votes. AlanStalk 13:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a very contentious topic. Consensus appears to be leaning KEEP at the moment. Relisting to try and generate more solid consensus and discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siheung Daeya station

Siheung Daeya station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NTRAINSTATION, "Train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations, but may be notable if they satisfy the WP:GNG criteria, the criteria of another subject-specific notability guideline, or other criteria within this notability guideline." This article does not appear to meet general notability guidelines (unless perhaps the Korean-language articles bring to light notability). A Google search has provided no additional sources to prove notability. ETA: Apologies for not bundling AfDs.Significa liberdade (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a consensus to Keep this article based on "cites added" but looking at the article, I can't see that any sources have been added and none have been brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Andrew Johnson. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Johnson (father of Andrew Johnson)

AfDs for this article:
Jacob Johnson (father of Andrew Johnson) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:GNG. While he has been mentioned in several books as a result of his presidential son, notability is not inherited and WP:SIGCOV still applies. Information currently in this article can and already is included in his son's article.

A previous AfD four years ago ended in no consensus; the mentioned sparse newspaper coverage there of his saving drowning sailors runs into WP:BIO1E problems. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Thanks for catching this dubious article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tumi (ancient language)

Tumi (ancient language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New article created by an editor with a track record of inventing dubious Indonesian “languages” that get deleted at AfD because they don’t actually exist. Of the two sources here I don’t have access to the first but the second appears to be a blog that doesn’t mention this language at all. Perhaps someone with better knowledge or access to sources can advise? Mccapra (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Indonesia. Mccapra (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cannot find any RS and, as nom indicates, one of the sources in the article doesn't even mention the subject. —siroχo 03:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as noted by nom, the accessible source appears to be a blog-like website and translating the contents does not then present reference to the alleged language in question. I am unaware of the article creator and will trust the nominator's concerns around them having a record of creating similarly dubious articles (although some supporting alternate AfD links would be useful here too). Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The first source is not just inaccessible, it appears spurious. It is given as "Sudjarwo, Prof. Dr. KPL Menjawab Sejarah (in Indonesian) (1 ed.). Lampung: Masa Kini Mandiri. p. 13. ISBN 9786025270529." The ISBN number does not exist in any of the databases I checked. A search for the title and author only comes up with a handful of pages and they are all Wikipedia or Wikipedia clones. I note that the page creator also recently created a page, Tumi (tribe) with the same source. Both pages are based on translations from Indonesian wikipedia, [43][44]. This page does not credit Indonesian Wikipedia for the copy within, so there is a (repairable) copyvio. On the basis of the sources present, this is a clear delete, but will wait to see if any better sourcing is available. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the issues with this article, this process seems all wrong.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close - This looks like another rush to judgement without discussion on the Talk. AfD should not be the first recourse if you think an article is weak or sources are bogus (both of which might well be true in this case). If you post your objections on the Talk (and give the editors at least a little time to respond), either your AfD case will be unassailable, or we get an article that adds value to the encyclopaedia. I propose we drop this nom, put the objections on Talk, give it a week, then AfD if the article doesn't improve. (see below for corrected !vote) Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think procedural close or withdraw is available here as there are already !votes. Also, whilst I understand the concern at the speed of the nomination, I was expecting the nom. might defend that by pointing out that this editor has some form regarding spurious pages. For instance: [45], and related to this AfD: [46]. Based on that form, there is a question as to whether this page might, in gact, have been a candidate for speedy deletion under G3. I have searched quite extensively now, and although we have editors more expert in this than me, who may hopefully comment here, I cannot find any evidence for such an ancient language. There is limited information for a modent Tumi language in Nigeria. See Tumi language (it won't take long to read!) But there are no books in English that discuss an ancient Tumi language per this article, nor journal articles nor anything else I can find. AfD takes at least a week, and if the page creator can present sources, these can be discussed and the process may take longer. But as soon as a page is in main space it qualifies for deletion, and if a page in mainspace appears to be a hoax or complete non subject, then a deletion discussion is wholly appropriate. We have draft space where articles can be developed to a publishable level, but once an editor makes a decision to publish a page, a deletion discussion is wholly within the rules. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good info and fair reasoning. I withdraw my !vote and change to Delete. I still don't like the persistent trend to RUSHDELETE so many articles, but I agree that this is not a viable article based on Sirfurboy's data. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yet another one of Eiskrahablo's dubious creations. And I'm not sure what "Unattested (possibly including Proto-Austronesian language)" is supposed to mean. The creator has been nothing but obtuse dealing with any concerns raised (persistent edit warring). Semmiii (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused; the page history says the author is Blackman Jr. (talk · contribs).
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ... who is the same person, with a history of terrible edits. But I'm not sure if anything should be deleted on account of them being a sock. The real issue is that they haven't improved and there's little (if any) salvageable content in these creations. It all ranges from misrepresenting sources (Eastern Indonesia Malay) to dubious hoax-like stuff ("standard Sula", this "ancient language"). To their credit, though, the first source here *could* be real as the ISBN appears to be (technically) valid. Except I have no reason to trust them at this point (and I'd just nuke all of it). Semmiii (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you suspect someone is a sockpuppet, you will need to take it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and open a case there. I strongly suggest you strike the accusation here until that is completed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Semmiii: You shouldn't come to hasty conclusions. Blackman Jr. randomly translates articles from Indonesian WP with zero scrutiny and a very apparent lack of competence or judgement about what they are doing, but also with zero POV. It's just random fluff. The LTA that you refer to has a very distinct and twisted POV. I see nothing of this in the creator of the present article. –Austronesier (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another day, another spurious language article by Blackman Jr. as a result of translation from Indonesian WP with zero scrutiny. There is no coverage of a "Tumi" language at all. In whatever kind of reliable or not so reliable sources. There are some dubious sources that talk about a semi-legendary people called "Tumi" that are claimed to have played a role in the early history of Lampung. But there is no mention whatsoever about their language in any source. People speak, right, but it is a stretch to "invent" a distinct language at any mention of a certain group of people, as was obviously done by the original creator of the Indonesian article. And the infobox is telling: it says "unattested", which is a very honest thing to say, but at the same time is a nice way to say "this is all made up".
Btw, I am absolutely baffled why it this AfD is called "rushed". If something is rubbish, then no time should be wasted to remove it from WP before it finds its way into mirrors and search engine. That's our responsibility. If there is anything to blame, it's taking it to AfD instead of simply PROD-ing it (OTOH, keeping a hoax for 7 days is quite irresponsible). –Austronesier (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add. For the record, the Indonesian version of this article was created by the same editor. I have mixed it up with Tumi (tribe). So unlike I have claimed earlier, this is not an just indiscriminate translation of an article with a spurious topic, but their very own concoction! –Austronesier (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have made the case above. Just adding the !vote. I note that a translation of the web page source on the page talks about the Tumi people, not the language and the page says the language is "unattested". I think the page creator has simply assumed that the language of the Tumi people must once have been a Tumi language, but that is WP:OR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the discussion to date. Bottom line: article is unreliable (in addition to notability, etc.)
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was delete‎. "Keep" voters do not provide a sufficient rationale, particularly when it comes to providing reliable secondary sources. Given the history of the article, SALTing seems appropriate to me. Drmies (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Repeated recreation despite many discussions closing with delete.

The subject still fails WP:NBOOK. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources? There are none. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel: I am not happy to see that you proposed for deletion without reading the article. Sources are added to the article itself. You can watch this video for Zakir Naik's topic. Although many have criticized him, but you can see this blog of Asif Mohiuddin, if you know Bengali language. ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 (inbox - contribs) 05:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the subject fails WP:GNG because it is lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. There are a number of subjects (such as YouTube channels) that have gained popularity in local spheres but they haven't recieved significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. CharlesWain (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlesWain I don't understand which GNG you read. If a book creates a new argument that is fundamentally used in a religious debate on that topic for the next 50+ years; How is that book not notable?
And the references here include Milli Gadget articles, books by Ziaur Rahman Azmi, Afrasiab Mehdi Hashmi and two other professors. I don't understand, are you considering these as YouTube channels or have you not seen the references at all? ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 (inbox - contribs) 15:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are only making a passing mention or they are discussing a broader subject. Read WP:GNG properly. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aman.kumar.goel Ziaur Rahman Azmi wrote the book about the similarities and differences between the religions of India (Hind). There he criticized the book for 5 pages. is this just a passing mantion? Another thing I found about this book today is that, this book was translated in bengali by the former Paschimbanga Bangla Akademi president Asitkumar Bandyopadhyay.[4]
Another complementary point to the book's notabilty is its misinterpreted (alleged by many Hindu pandit and I read a book by ISKCON Bangladesh about this) in Hindu scriptures. Doesn't that prove the notability? (Off topic: Dada, please mention me while answering. I'm actually not very active on English Wikipedia.) ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 (inbox - contribs) 17:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Muhammad in Hindu scriptures". Milli Gazette. Archived from the original on 2019-01-07. Retrieved 2014-11-06.
  2. ^ الرحمن, أعظمى، محمد ضياء (2008). دراسات في اليهودية والمسيحية وأديان الهند والبشارات في كتب الهندوس (in Arabic). مكتبة الرشد،. pp. 703–708.
  3. ^ Malik, Dr Ahmad; Mehdi Hashmi Qureshi, Afrasiab (1 January 2022). END TIMES (What could happen in the world tomorrow). (Center for Global and Strategic Studies, Islamabad). pp. 13, 274, 275. ISBN 9789699837142. Retrieved 1 September 2022.
  4. ^ Basu, Anjali (Jan 2019). Samsad Bangali Charitabidhan (in Bengali) (Second ed.). Kolkata: Sahitya Samsad. pp. 48–50. ISBN 978-81-7955-292-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
Still fails WP:SIGCOV. Dympies (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis table would be very helpful at this point in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - I would like to ask a question out of respect for those who are asking for deletion: When a book appears as the main subject of two notable religious debates, notable religious figures review and criticize or in some cases praise the book in their respective books or in the media; So why is the book not notable? Because the reviewer's book is in Arabic, Sanskrit or some such language? or anything else? Although I don't normally participate in AFD. But a few days ago, besides participating in the AFD of Ulipur.com, I also participated in this AFD. So maybe, I'm not understanding the point correctly. ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 (inbox - contribs) 06:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel, please don't forget the steps listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors. Thanks,

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B.: There is no such requirement. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 00:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right -- it is not technically a requirement but it is recommended and requested by the AfD procedure. It's unusual that a nominator doesn't do this. It's highly unusual when they refuse to do it. This leaves others wondering what's up with the nominator.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is your own issue that you are not assuming good faith. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is a lot of established reliable source here including Afrasiab Mehdi Hashmi, former Pakistani High comissioner, Zakir Naik, Ali Gomaa, Ali Unal, Ziaur Rahman Azmi, Asitkumar Bandhopaddhay Abubakar Muhammad Zakaria etc. and most of the sources discuss the matter in detail, including the published journal articles given in the article from Middle East, Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia from their renowned national leading universities, also there are references from lots of established news articles and international books, so it clearly passes WP:RS, WP:NB and GNG. But in all the article, there should be also added hindu point of views more to make the article more balanced, because the book and the topic is also very familiar in Hindu communities when it comes to the hindu muslim dialogue, and most of the Hindus gives different explanations of these discussions, their referencial point of views should be also added. — Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 10:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM, blatantly promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrielAcosta (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still hoping for a source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Sources were already analyzed. None of them fulfills the requirement of WP:GNG. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
where have you given or discussed the detailed analysis of the sources pointing them specifically? Show. The article meets WP:SIGCOV of WP:GNG, and besides when SNG is met, GNG is not needed, and according to WP:SNG of WP:NB, and to the first 66 of the given 67 sources in reference, the article meets the criteria 1, as this book "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.", criteria 3, as this book "has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.", criteria 4, as the book "is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.". 43.245.120.228 (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But @Liz there are 68 citations / footnotes for this article! Please don't ask for a source analysis again.
I'm here grudgingly because this article is listed in Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times
I machine translated and analyzed a few of the refs and did some searches of my own. In the interest of not making others eyes bleed with a wall of text, I will not post them here. See Wikipedia Talk:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad.
Assessment: this book is notable but it's been superseded by a later book Ved Prakash Upadhyay wrote. Upadhyay's books, as I understand them, attempt to find some common theological overlap between Hinduism and Islam. This work is polarizing partly because adherents of both faiths seem to see this as a long stretch. It's also polarizing because South Asia is violently polarized anyway; Upadhyay wants to calm this. Someone in a previous AfD called these views "fringe" and I can see why; I'm not saying they are but I can see how most South Asians might see them this way. That doesn't mean they're wrong; it's a matter of faith. Nevertheless, I think they are notable if you sift through enough stuff; see the talk page.
Merge with Ved Prakash Upadhyay. Notwithstanding the technical notability of this book, I recommend merging its article to the author's article. This is because the refs I read tended to lump this in with the later book and Upadhyay in general. Do we want an article on this book and the later book and the author repeating the same arguments? It just seems to make the most sense to put all this together in one good, comprehensive article. It's less susceptible to POV forking, too.
That's 2 hours Wikipedia owes me.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ved Prakash Upadhyay. The same citations here apply there also. Upadhyay's article has more refs and honors cited than this book.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single source satisfies WP:GNG. You believe this self-published source (as stated by the website itself) "counts towards notability". In any case, your own poor analysis fail to suggest any notability. Editorkamran (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Editorkamran You answared about only a single source. What about Ziaur Rahman Azmi's book? why is this not notable? And what about the work of Asitkumar Bandyopadhyay, Is his work was not notable? He was the president of Paschimbanga Bangla Akademi, who translated it and added an appendix chapter. ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 (inbox - contribs) 06:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. I will make this easy — those who wish to keep this article, please provide the best seven(Ceiling[68/10])sources and I will offer an explanation about why they don't contribute to GNG. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:*ref no 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 28, 30, 32, 42, 44, 45, 48, (mostly 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14) use Google Translate and Google Lens. I am not having time otherwise i have the ability to show the notibility.202.134.10.138 (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I asked for seven; so, my analysis will be restricted to Sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14 as present this version which stood at the time of your comment:
    Source 1: "Human Resource Management Academic Research Society" is a journal that is not indexed in any bibliogaphic database of repute (Scopus/WoS/..) and more importantly, was in Beall's list before it was shut down. When anybody tries to cite the journal, we issue an alert about the poor quality of the source but that has not discouraged you or whoever added it.
    Source 2: A publication by Center for Global and Strategic Studies, Islamabad. There is not the slightest of indication that this is a think-tank of any repute.
    Source 3: The Jordanian Journal of Islamic Studies is a journal that is not indexed in any bibliogaphic database of repute (Scopus/WoS/..) and is published by a fringe Islamic universty.
    Source 4: PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt / Egyptology was hijacked. C. 2018, it was transferred to Open Access Text Ltd., a known predatory publisher — again on Beall's list and our black-list — and subsequently removed from Scopus at the end of 2019. Need I say more?
    Source 12: You claim that undergraduate theses are reliable? Or do you think that I am stupid enough to be misled because I cannot read Indonesian?
    Source 13: Why would Al-Idrak, published by an eponymous research center in lahore, be considered as a rleiable source? This is not indexed in any bibliogaphic database of repute (Scopus/WoS/..) and has never been cited by any scholar in the Academe.
    Source 14: Why would انتظار موعود be a RS? This is not indexed in any bibliogaphic database of repute (Scopus/WoS/..), etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aman.kumar.goel, please do not strike comments from editors you disagree on the basis of your own unproven "sock" allegation. Get a checker confirmation first.
This AfD is getting out of hand on both sides of the issue. @Liz
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 11:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B.: The IP who is obsessionally badgering here is evading his block on this proxy IP. Stop assuming bad faith. You have been already warned by me right above on 02:02, 5 August 2023. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is now blocked again. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ IJ-ARBASS 2017, Vol. 7, Special Issue – Islam and Contemporary Issues) ISSN 2222-6990
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I have to close this discussion as a No consensus. My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that a Redirect or Merge might be appropriate here but there wasn't a majority of editors advocating for any particular outcome. In lieu of a more definitive closure, I encourage editors to improve this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zotiel (angel)

Zotiel (angel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One mention in a religious text and scattered references elsewhere do not bode well for notability. Fails WP:GNG. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We traditionally have articles on similar minor Biblical figures including others in Enoch such as Sariel, Yomiel, Sathariel, Shamsiel, Zaqiel, Bezaliel, Ananiel, Batariel, Armaros, etc.
Zotiel is also mentioned in later works far outside the Christian and Jewish mainstream in areas such as Hollow Earth theory, modern day Anunnakism, popular culture works about angels, etc. [47][48][49][50][51]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 07:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning that, in addition to the mention in the Book of Enoch, also later mentions of the figure count toward notability. gidonb (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: as at the moment there's no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Without seeing the Gil source it's hard to be sure, but we have some coverage in Stock-Hesketh in Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha that references Gil with some depth, making it seem likely.

    In contrast, there are clear directions for the eastern journey, where Enoch is on his own,and actually flies over the head of an angel, Zutuel.40
    ...
    40. Though see Black (Book of Enoch, p. 179), who thinks that Zutiel is a corruption of the text. This angel appears in Codex Panopolitanus as Zotiel and Ethiopic as lamal’ak zutu’êl; Knibb (Ethiopic Book of Enoch, I, p. 101, line 22) and note. Charles has zute’êl and notes variants (Ethiopic Enoch, p. 72) and thinks that this is ’seemingly the angel who guards the entrance to Paradise’ (APOT, p. 207). Gil suggests that he is connected with the eastern journey as the ’angel who resurrects the dead. He is the angelological correspondent of the Tree of Life’; M. Gil ’Enoch in the Land of Eternal Life’ Tarbiz 38.4 (1969), pp. i-iii (ii).

    .
A merge may be appropriate even given all this if it improves the main article. —siroχo 06:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, I see weak arguments for Delete and others for Keep and Redirect. This might be closed as No consensus. It would help to bring in more subject matter experts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KHIZ-LD

KHIZ-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After some thought, despite this being a station in Los Angeles, one of the biggest television markets in the US, I cannot see how this low-power station — a former TBN relay turned into another DTV America/HC2/Innovate operation — actually meets the GNG. It appears to have only ever really been a repeater of other networks or stations, with neither the adequate sourcing nor any sort of local content or coverage that would get it anywhere near actual notability; the article also tends to attract unsourced edits of dubious quality, another reason why our old overpresumption of "notability" (based on an essay, which seemed to have these all-diginet stations slip through the cracks pre-2021, rather than GNG) was a bit of an error in hindsight. (This is another station that was part of the failed bulk nomination of HC2/Innovate station articles that intermingled stations like this one with facilities that have slightly more substantial histories; the history here isn't quite as threadbare as some of the newer DTV America stations that went from application to license surrender in about a decade, but it isn't much better.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting subject to a previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K04QR-D so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of anti-sexual assault organizations in the United States

AfDs for this article:
List of anti-sexual assault organizations in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY, full of external links, and likely to be out of date. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES Dronebogus (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Cape Breton International Drum Festival

The result was ‎WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) JFHJr (㊟) 03:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Cape Breton International Drum Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has never had any cites at all, let alone to a reliable source. Because the vast majority of it was a list of notable and non-notable living persons, I removed it. Looking for sources, I got mostly 1) PR, 2) passing mention, no in-depth coverage of the festival itself, or 3) announcements for upcoming/planned events, which cannot support prose to say it happened or was significant. See WP:V and WP:OR. JFHJr (㊟) 02:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think this is probably notable and I'm sympathetic to you refs search but I'm busy with an article of my own that's teetering on the brink at AfD with a hungry mob.
I did squeeze in a little time for searching and found this:
Don't know if it'll help but give it a try. This article about Bruce Aitken also talks about the festival. You might look for other articles by searching on Aiken's name.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aitken is a WP:BLPSPS because he's basically talking about himself. If prose based on him talking about his own festival belongs anywhere, it's his own article. He doesn't add anything to the festival's stand-alone notability. JFHJr (㊟) 02:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are three editors arguing for a Keep and one determined editor insisting on Deletion. I think we need a few more participants and let's focus on the sources, not evaluating other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome. That's two sources giving substantial coverage (in the past tense). I'm withdrawing this nomination. JFHJr (㊟) 03:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of big names came to this festival.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tons of names + no reliable sourcing = tons of BLP violations. There's nothing about famous people attending that makes this festival notable. See WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:BLPSPS. JFHJr (㊟) 22:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. This could have also been a Redirect but those advocating Keep attest to the validity of the sources so I'll close this as Keep. There is no support for Deletion aside from the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Khan (actor)

Aryan Khan (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

less notablity, fails in WP:NACTOR Worldiswide (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between those advocating Keep and those arguing for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tippe Emmott

Tippe Emmott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant, nor any other guideline to warrant keeping an encyclopedia article on this subject. Let'srun (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, McLongdong Johnson,
How did you end up at this AFD on your very first edit to the project? This is very unusual for a brand new editor. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used the portal where you go to see how editing to even do more get involved. McLongdong Johnson (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Zilog Z80#Derivatives. Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zilog Z380

Zilog Z380 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article, sources cited (mostly manuals?), and my BEFORE do not suggest this piece of tech (processor) meets GNG. My best find is a single sentence here from PediaPress, which may not be reliable as it republishes Wikipedia texts... Can anyone find better sources to rescue it or suggest a redirect/merge target? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your problem and why do you want to delete this article? Gábor Mayer (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not meeting WP:GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. leaning Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Slavic cultures

List of Slavic cultures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR WP:UNSOURCED WP:CROSSCAT of language family – Slavic languages – and geography – almost all items in this list are named Culture of Fooland. The only one for which this does not apply is Lusatian culture, an archaeological culture which has been hypothesised to be linked to the Early Slavs, but the evidence of this (as with most archaeological cultures) is inconclusive.

The Slavic language family is WP:NONDEFINING for these countries, so this list is a WP:CROSSCAT. There is a strong consensus building on a long series of precedents to not mix up language families and countries/states, see the landmark decision Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries for an anthology. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a list of ethnicities would make more sense (though I don’t support it per listcruft). “Culture” is used on Wikipedia to refer to the culture of an area or group, not that area or group. This list makes no sense. Dronebogus (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Outline of Slavic history and culture#Culture. This quasi-disambiguation list is not useful as a standalone page, though this seems like a plausible search term, and this is an appropriate target article to redirect to. For now, at least, not sure if there are plans for AfD-ing or revamping the said article too, but the merge should be done regardless. –Vipz (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Strange list of countries with predominantly Slavic populations. Analogous to it would be List of German cultures, List of Baltic cultures, or List of Finno-Ugric cultures. I don't see the point of either redirecting or merging, too. Suitskvarts (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Keep. I hate list articles and even I see a strong value here. The list is about cultures, not territories. Nederlandse Leeuw's assertion otherwise completely ignores the last four decades when many of the those precise Slavic cultures attempted to cleanse each other. They thereby created territories and named them for the cultural identity they were claiming, not the other way round. Suitskvarts, are you saying we should AfD Germanic culture, Western Baltic culture and (although it's not the precise title) Andronovo culture? The articles exist and are pretty solid. Or is the problem the fact that it's a list? Attempting to pretend that (for instance) Elbeans and Bosnians had the same culture (and writing such an article) would raise howls of rage, but they each have a culture, and each has Slavic roots. Thus a list makes perfect sense. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Last1in I myself have Slavic roots and cultural studies is my specialty. I wouldn't mind a meaningful Slavic culture article, but this particular list is artificial. And one can keep repeating that it's allegedly not about territories, but it's obvious that these "non-territories" somehow coincide with modern states. And Slavic states in their modern form haven't existed that long ago. If tomorrow Belarus, for example, breaks up into Northern Belarus and Southern Belarus, we will immediately add to the list of articles North Belarusian culture and Southern Belarusian culture? Another serious issue is that apart from a language of common genesis, the Slavic countries don't have much in common. Their cuisine, religious tradition, literature, history, and culture (which is what we are focusing on here) often differ from each other more than from Slavic countries and their neighbors. Serbian culture is more similar to Hungarian culture than to Belarusian one. Poles have more in common with Lithuanians than with Macedonians. And so on, and so on. Suitskvarts (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear, hear! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. My gut instinct is to close this as Merge to Outline of Slavic history and culture#Culture but there are strong arguments for Keep and Deletion that might lead to a No Consensus closure by another closer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it is useful to have a list of cultures here and it is of useful to have it for navigational purposes. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep A possible search term which works better as a list than a category. No problem with any proposed AtD, including merging. SportingFlyer T·C 11:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, to echo Dream Focus, why the melodrama? This is only a navigational aid. A lot of people have no idea what countries contain people considered Slavic. It's impossible to sort out the extent to which a people is defined by their language or by their current geographical boundaries, or by their cookery or anything else; and the definition of a particular region, people, or culture gradually changes over time anyway, as boundaries move, people move, and people mix their ideas with their neighbours. Rather than arguing over what constitutes or defines Belarusian culture, lets accept that our readers may be interested in what cultural activities are associated with Belarus (the current country), with people who identify as Belarusian, or who speak Belarusian. And let's give them this list as a tool to find out more. Elemimele (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Dixon

Callum Dixon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR, only appears in generic articles listing actors. No non-trivial coverage from any secondary sources.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 15:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. The article is pretty bare bones, and a lot of the links have gone dead, but I think someone should dig a little deeper before we rush to delete this. He has done a lot of work in West End theatre and other UK theatre. Playbill wrote a paragraph about his work here. More theatre credits here. He has also done quite a bit of TV work, but I don't know how significant his roles were.
The Playbill article isn't about him and only lists his works − I don't think that qualifies as coverage.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because of the Weak Keeps. This tilts the discussion to a No Consensus closure unless an another week brings in more participants who can provide additional sources or a further source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Per the sources provided by others, this subject has just enough WP:SIGCOV to meet the GNG, mainly via the Leicester Mercury article and aforementioned 1991 article from Bungle. Let'srun (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above Brachy08 (Talk) 02:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BASIC is met. The Leicester Mercury source is an ideal starting point. Note also that BASIC says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, making exception for trivial coverage, where examples of trivial coverage include statements by the subject, jobs the subject has undertaken, database entries and the like. As such, we can examine sources for short but non-trivial coverage to establish BASIC. Reading through proquest you get lots of short-but-non-trivial bits of coverage. In fact based on these first 3 sources, we have verifiability that multiple critics thought the subject was funny in his role as the pizza man in Mr Kolpert.
    1. A key comic catalyst is Callum Dixon's hilariously bemused pizza man, who keeps arriving with the wrong order at the worst possible times, his knock regularly confused with the knock that seems to be coming from inside the trunk.[61]
    2. Callum Dixon is hilarious as the pizza man who finds he has stepped into social mayhem.[62]
    3. Meanwhile, Callum Dixon's bemused little pizza man keeps arriving with the wrong order and blundering into scenes that would faze a hardened war correspondent.[63]
    4. Max Stafford- Clark's mesmerising production features an outstanding cast, ably led by lippy Callum Dixon ... [64].
    5. Matters aren't helped by Stephen Rayne's laborious direction and some startlingly unsubtle acting. Honourable exceptions include Callum Dixon's Nat, whose Cockney chirpiness is convincingly edged with menace ... [65]
    6. ... and her horse-mad son, wirily incarnated by Callum Dixon. [66]
    7. ... Callum Dixon, 26, has just completed a run at the National in The Day I Stood Still.[67]
    8. But the play is never less than provocatively entertaining, and under John Burgess's direction there are striking performances from Charlotte Cornwell as the standup therapist, Callum Dixon as the anxious construction worker ... [68]
    9. Adrian Scarborough captures precisely Horace's mixture of romantic longing and fear of commitment. Callum Dixon is also suitably tentative as his younger self ...[69]
This list is far from exhaustive, I didn't even check every result in ProQuest. And there appears to be quite a bit more in The Daily/Sunday Telegraph archives for which I don't have full text access. There will surely be more in other archives than ProQuest. —siroχo 06:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Harris (engineer)

Cal Harris (engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Motown sound engineer lacking sources. Rates one passing mention each in Motown Encyclopedia, Motown: The Golden Years and I Hear a Symphony: Motown and Crossover R&B. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Dvin (ancient city). (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dvin

Battle of Dvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no source that mention of such a battle. It's likely to be a hoax. Nanahuatl (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_August_7&oldid=1169204044"