Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 17: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends, Lovers, and the Big Terrible Thing}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primax Broadcasting Network}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primax Broadcasting Network}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghulam Mustafa Burdwani}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghulam Mustafa Burdwani}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 03:17, 17 January 2024

< January 16 January 18 >

Purge server cache

Friends, Lovers, and the Big Terrible Thing

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator as below hence keep. And that my friends is what they call (non-admin closure)‎. Ouro (blah blah) 05:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Friends, Lovers, and the Big Terrible Thing (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 doesn't have enough content to warrant its own page. Also, as it is an autobiography, anything revealed in it would be best suited for the MattheW Perry page itself. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose. Article can definitely be expanded and work standalone rather than just as a section in the author's article. Might get around to doing that. This work is important and unique in the sense that it is uncommonly candid. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I expanded it a bit. Can someone make the references nicer? I don't know how to do that yet. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refs nicely filled in. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve seen the edits and now support keeping it. I don’t know the correct procedure to close this, but I withdraw my nomination to close it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primax Broadcasting Network

Primax Broadcasting Network (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)

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 03:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Mustafa Burdwani

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

Historical scholarship does not document our subject except once with the rest of the sources being verbatim quotations. Fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. Article contains a lot of Original Research. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. RomanRaju (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the two participants just registered their accounts and sped here. So, I'd welcome more opinions especially if there is a feasible ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get an assessment of newly added sources. By the way, this AFD was not set up properly, the article was never tagged with an AFD tag until a bot eventually did. Please review AFD instructions, nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Border Areas of Punjab, India

Border Areas of Punjab, India (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 source referring to these districts/a specific border area as a particular grouping, appears to be WP:OR. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 15:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, agreed it seems like WP:OR, sources used are about specific border areas or just listing/mapping parts of Punjab that border. Certain parts of the article may be worth merging into appropriate other articles, but the subject/scope of this article is OR. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 20:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This AFD was started about 30 mins. after the article was created and it has been edited quite a lot since its nomination. Could the article be re-reviewed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus reached, 27 day-old nom. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuanhang Y6

Yuanhang Y6 (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:NPRODUCT. Non-notable vehicle manufactured by non-notable car manufacturer. Of the two sources provided, the ArenaEV article states that it is based on the CarNewsChina article, which in turn states that it is based on the manufacturers website - so the sources are not independent. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 11:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like W[P:PROMOTION
] to me Jothefiredragon (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)][reply]
What the hell WP:PROMOTION Jothefiredragon (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be for the article but how is it promotion for a car that will never be sold outside of China. I say no prejudice for a recreation. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This could be closed as a Soft Deletion but I think the article would be quickly restored. So, let's keep this open a while longer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Jiang, Zhiwen 姜智文 (2023-11-10). Guo, Yue 郭跃 (ed.). 开启批量化生产交付 远航Y6何以杀出重围？ [Mass production and delivery started. Why did Yuanhang Y6 break through the siege?]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-01-19. Retrieved 2024-01-19.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "In terms of appearance, the Yuanhang Y6 adopts a closed front face and a minimalist streamlined body design, supplemented by electric hidden door handles and intelligent sensor frameless electric door openings. The car is nearly 5.3 meters long and has a wheelbase of nearly 3.2 meters ... Economic Daily reporter felt during a short field experience that the Yuanhang Y6 has excellent acceleration performance, and the vehicle stability and quietness are good during driving. Some fellow car media said, "You can feel a strong push-back feeling, and the large central control screen is full of technology.""

    2. Zhang, Xiaodan 张晓丹 (2023-12-28). 售32.98-52.98万元 远航Y6正式上市 [Priced at RMB 329,800-529,800, Yuanhang Y6 is officially launched]. Autohome [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-01-19. Retrieved 2024-01-19.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "In terms of appearance, Yuanhang Y6 adopts a coupe-style body design, with a simple and elegant body shape. Details such as the side door handles adopt the popular hidden door handles, and the side windows are frameless. At the same time, you can also see that this car is equipped with NFC and face recognition units at the B-pillar, which is a popular way to unlock vehicles nowadays."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yuanhang Y6 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    I am also fine with a merge/redirect to Yuanhang Auto, Yuanhang Y6's manufacturer, but that article currently does not exist. Yuanhang Auto is discussed in the article of its parent company at Dayun Group#Yuanhang Auto but a merge of this article's information (as well as incorporating the detailed information in the sources I've linked) there would be undue weight. Since Yuanhang Auto currently does not exist, I am supporting a standalone article for now.

    Cunard (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. S5A-0043Talk 12:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get a review of newly located sources to see if they are sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Thanks to Cunard for finding these sources. The first source, on the face of it, seems to be the routine coverage of a product launch, but it does go slightly beyond that with the inclusion of the reporter's personal experience of the vehicle. I’m not sure about the second source. Autohome uses "occupationally-generated, professionally-generated, user-generated content, and AI-generated content" [1] in this case the source seems to come under WP:USERGENERATED. The editor does not work for Autohome but does seem to have viewed the car in person. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 10:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article from Xiaodan Zhang (Chinese: 张晓丹) is by an Autohome editor. Her profile picture has a blue checkmark. When I hover over the blue checkmark, the page shows the popup text "汽车之家编辑", which translates to "Autohome editor". Her staff page also says she is an Autohome editor and says she is in the "车闻团队" department, which translates to "Car news team". While some content from Authome is user-generated and AI-generated, this article was written by an Autohome employee–editor so is in the professionally generated category. Cunard (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn, passes WP:GNG, per the sources provided by Cunard. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 12:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are other !votes to delete so it cannot be withdrawn, but thanks for your comments! --94rain Talk 06:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I also found another English source:
McDee, Max (2023-11-04). "Dayun Yuanhang Y6 comes with 150 kWh battery and 634 miles range". ArenaEV.com. Retrieved 2024-01-28.
There are some comments beyond routine coverage like: "We can only envy the Chinese consumers the choice and value they are getting. Will the Dayun ever leave Chinese shores and land in Europe or the US? Unlikely - to a lot of relief from the likes of Volkswagen and Ford." The website is by the team behind GSMArena (which is reliable per Wikipedia:New_page_patrol_source_guide#Science_and_technology)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Paola Andía

Ana Paola Andía (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 sufficient coverage of the subject, a Bolivian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An article on this subject has already been deleted 4 or 5 times and I don't see that this version is an improvement. It's clear that editors advocating "Keep" do not understand Wikipedia's standards for Notability because merely being mentioned in an article is insufficient. Since previous versions of this article were created by sockpuppets, I'm wondering if a return trip to SPI is called for. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nabin Luhagun (thespian)

Nabin Luhagun (thespian) (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 presumably created at this location to circumvent the creation protection at Nabin Luhagun, which was part of a concerted sockpuppetry campaign to add an article about this person to the English Wikipedia. (Note the existence of an equally poor article at the Hindi Wikipedia here, created by translating the now-deleted and similarly-protected Nabin Luhagun (actor), which indicates that the subject is Nepali, as was the case with the deleted versions here, rather than Indian.) The given references only include mentions in cast lists and are of dubious reliability. A search suggests that there is not enough third-party coverage to warrant a biographical article and that the subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Kinu t/c 02:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep.and move to Nabin Luhagun without (thespian) if possible, since there isn't any other articles which exists with that name. Thank you. AasifShrestha (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.Redirect. The title is connected to Waltair Veerayya; it is better to redirect the page to Waltair Veerayya, no deletion.2400:9700:113:1547:45B5:4F14:BC2E:F828 (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RomanRaju (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Regarding the IP's suggestion of redirecting to the Waltair Veerayya article, I would prefer if there was some solid source for associating the subject with the film. The subject is not mentioned at the film's IMDb article's full cast and crew, for example. AllyD (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the deletion history of this article in its previous forms, I'm almost inclined to believe that this is some sort of astroturfing campaign. I find absolutely nothing reliable to support the alleged acting credits except for name checks from the content aggregator-type sites like those presented as sources in this version. Is some or all of it a hoax? I don't know for sure, but if nothing else the sourcing is hardly sufficient to support a WP:BLP. Kinu t/c 03:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is actually the second relist. The one indicated on top of mine was tagged incorrectly by a discussion participant so the discussion was not reposted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia–Kosovo relations

Cambodia–Kosovo 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)

There is not much to these relations except lack of recognition by Cambodia which is already covered in International_recognition_of_Kosovo#Countries_which_have_not_recognised_Kosovo_as_an_independent_state. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nah bro this is a very important article we MUST keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cringlebob (talk • contribs) 14:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AzzyLand

AzzyLand (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)

It doesn't seem like this Youtuber meets WP:GNG or WP:ENT. The best I can find are non-RSees, the BI article listing creators with high view counts, and recent articles about SSSniperwolf's ongoing disputes with different content creators including Azzyland. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

  1. A 7-minute video interview published by Forbes hosted by Moira Forbes
  2. A 3-minute video interview with Cosmopolitan Middle East
  3. The Business Insider piece already cited in the Wikipedia article, which covers the subject briefly but more than a passing mention, so probably counts as "half of a source"
  4. An article by GirlTalkHQ, a magazine I haven't heard of but might be reliable

Left guide (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Found name mentions, interviews, promo, nothing meeting SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs requires strong sourcing. Sources in the article are:
Comments Source
Official website, fails WP:IS 1. https://www.azzyland.com
Social media channel 2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzeB_0FNcPIyUSjL_TL5lEw
Promo item in list of social media channel, database style info. 3. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-most-viewed-creators-pewdiepie-david-dobrik-mrbeast-azzyland-lazarbeam-2019-12
BLPs require strong soucing. Ping me if WP:IS WP:RS with NPOV SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth is found.  // Timothy :: talk  19:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Just not enough coverage to meet notability. Dexerto has a few articles about the feud with SSniperwold [4] and [5], but it's a marginally reliable source per our guidelines. A forbes interview [6] is fine but there is little to no information outside the interview, so it's still a primary source. I was surprised to learn she's from Toronto and actually has set up a foundation for the SickKids Hospital here, one of the best pediatric hospitals in Canada, but there is no coverage about it! Using her real name, the best I could find was [7] where she guest stars on a CBC web series/tv show. I'm frankly surprised she hasn't been interviewed by more media here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. But, honestly the article could be improved with reliable sources could be said about every single article on the project.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Indonesia–Ukraine relations. Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Indonesia, Kyiv

Embassy of Indonesia, Kyiv (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 doesn't say much except confirms it exists and lacking indepth coverage. The Ukrainian and Indonesian language versions of these article have more sources but they merely confirm former ambassadors. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in hope of more participation. However, if you wish other articles to be considered for deletion, you need to make a bundled nomination at AFD, just mentioning them in a comment has no effect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or go to WP:REFUND Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jazja

Battle of Jazja (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 GNG and NEVENT. Minorincident, No sources found showing this has WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  01:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)  // Timothy :: talk  01:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added another secondary source Yubudirsi (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources. Of course, this AFD discussion can be closed at any time. But it would be helpful to get an editor to review new content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete though I’ve no objection to draftification. The creator appears to have gone through the chronicles and written an article about every armed conflict that ever took place between Ethiopia and Adal using the formula “battle of [place mentioned] whether the source describes that as “[battle of place mentioned]” or not. I think there is sufficient sourcing for several more broad-based articles talking about each war, or each campaign, or each period, but not one for each “battle”. This is an area of history which is currently under covered, but that isn’t a license to embroider and expand on what sources say. Draftification would allow the creator to figure out some way of repurposing the material they’ve researched and combining multiple current articles in the series they’ve created in the NPP queue, but unless they ask to do that, I agree we should delete. Mccapra (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are five citations, this should pass GNG. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of them is more than just a passing mention? What coverage is WP:INDEPTH? Mccapra (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The policy-based consensus is clear. Star Mississippi 14:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failatu Abdul-Razak

Failatu Abdul-Razak (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 notable for only one thing (WP:BLP1E), which is attempting to break the world record, but she didn't manage to do that. The rest of the article is also promotional in tone. ... discospinster talk 00:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct; the tone of the article is promotional. A complete overhaul is necessary. Instead of deleting it, I suggest we undertake a comprehensive revision to address the promotional aspects and improve its overall quality. Ihikky (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although except for nom there are only "keep" arguments, they are weaker than the nomination statement and counter-argument. I do not see consensus for "delete" so I am relisting in hopes of more in-depth discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete or normal delete as irredeemably promotional. "Many orphans have received food from Faila and her colleagues at their restaurant, bringing happiness and smiles to their faces, all thanks to the non-profit". Any article written along these lines needs WP:TNT and rewriting from scratch by uninvolved editors. Sandstein 20:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all !votes here made strong policy-based arguments, but the added material does appear to be significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sainty

Chris Sainty (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I agree with @Roundtheworld this diplomat is quite well know, the article should remain open. Diogo Costa (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "quite well known" is not a notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get an assessment on recent contributions to the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 17:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, which means moving the article to Draft:1892 Western Maryland Green Terror football team where the content may be used to create an encyclopedic article that can be moved back to mainspace. If such does not happen withing six months, the draft may be deleted.

There is clear consensus that a one-game season of a college football team doesn't warrant a standalone article. The suggestion to the redirect has been opposed as convincingly explained by Cbl62 and there is no further support for that option. The option to draftify in the hopes of creating an article covering multiple seasons is the one that has most support. I must admit that I am skeptical since nobody has stepped forward to write that article, but I will accept that it is at least a possibilty. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1892 Western Maryland Green Terror football team

1892 Western Maryland Green Terror football team (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)

Unable to find the WP:SIGCOV needed for this team, which only played one game against a nearby high school, to meet the WP:NSEASONS. Let'srun (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons in the deletion discussion for the 1893 team.[8]. Should have been bundled. Wizmut (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect. In these cases, redirects to the main program article are not "cheap", they are quite costly. By this same logic, every single redlink at Template:McDaniel Green Terror football navbox could be filled in with the same redirect. There is zero utility to such redirects and considerable harm. The harm is that our entire system of team navboxes, a system carefully built over the past decade, is rendered meaningless as we can no longer tell from viewing the template which seasons actually have articles. Why would we want to go in that direction? Ugh! Cbl62 (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification is fine with me. Cbl62 (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Object for now, due to the seeming lack of expansion potential, unless further details can be provided. Let'srun (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per BeanieFan11. I doubt that a stand-alone article limited to this season will ever pass GNG. That said, under WP:NSEASONS, a grouped article along the line of Western Maryland Green Terror football, 1891-1909 or such might be viable. But I don't think we need to cross that bridge in order to justify draftification for an established user like Beanie who has demonstrated ability in building viable merger targets. Worst case, he fails and the draft gets deleted in six months. I don't see any downside to letting Beanie work on it in draftspace. Cbl62 (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing any coverage that would support a standalone article or balanced mention in a hypothetical merge target. It's not like there's anything independent and secondary worth keeping from this tiny stub, which is sourced entirely to the school's media guide.
JoelleJay (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to see if there is more support for Draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali-Mohammad Mirza

Ali-Mohammad Mirza (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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). There is clear consensus that this article is about the same topic as Saint John River, making it a WP:POVFORK. Salting is not necessary unless there are disruptive edits to the redirect, which doesn't appear to be the case based on the article's history. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolastoq

Wolastoq (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 seems to be a WP:POVFORK about the river known as the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). While some have proposed the river be renamed Wolastoq, governments in Canada and the US have not done so. It seems clear that the widely accepted name is "Saint John River". This article has been discussed at WP:CANADA and there seems to be a consensus, at least there, that this page should be deleted or merged into Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). Some editors there said that once this page is a redirect it should be WP:SALTed to prevent re-creation. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I invite attention to this discussion to understand the origin of this article. The status of this river as an international boundary artificially splits the region's previous history as a single first nation with important contributions to preservation of the Acadian way of life. I am of the opinion this material might be integrated into the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article from which it was removed by Cornellier. Failure to keep this information together needlessly fragments background circumstances important to understanding of that history. This situation may justify application of WP:IAR to the WP:WikiProject Rivers guidelines. Thewellman (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand this point of view. A river being an international boundary does not preclude coverage of subjects that cross that international boundary. JM (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SALTing this unique indigenous name in favor of the ambiguous term Saint John would reject a name used for thousands of years in favor of a recent identification used for a few centuries. Rejection of the indigenous name would be a continuation of European Christian devaluation of the ethnicity of the river valley's indigenous people. This river unified an early civilization as the Nile unified Egypt and the Tigris and Euphrates unified what is now know as Iraq. A merged article entitled Wolastoq would uniquely identify this river while Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) could redirect modern users to the article including a history of the renaming. Thewellman (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In English (and this is the English wikipedia) Saint John is the common name. Wolastoq is the name in the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy language. Deleting this article doesn't "reject a name used for thousands of years in favor of a recent identification used for a few centuries" as Wolastoq is not English. If we had a Maliseet-Passamaquoddy language wiki, then it would make sense to name that river Wolastoq there. Having two articles like this about the same subject is a clear POV fork. Masterhatch (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:COMMONNAME for why that's wrong. Saint John River (and its translations and transliterations) is the name used by most of the world now, including all provincial, state, and federal governments involved. It doesn't matter what name was used hundreds of years ago, whether it was used for 10 years or 10,000 years, because it's not used now. JM (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The official name in French is Rivière Saint-Jean; the fact we don't use it in the title here is the best parallel to this issue. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right (although to my knowledge it's fleuve Saint-Jean), and the reason we don't use it in the title is because it is not the English common name. This is English Wikipedia. JM (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison to the French version of the name isn't exactly apt. There are efforts to rename the river in English by adopting the indigenous name as the official English (and perhaps French) name for the river. It's just that those proposals haven't been successful yet (and might never be). There has also been attempts to compromise by adopting "Wolastoq Saint John", but that hasn't happened yet either. At the end of the day, the article should be where readers will look for it per WP:RF. Though, I would suspect the other name should be mentioned in the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article perhaps in the history section where it could be mentioned that the river was known as Wolastoq prior to European colonization, in a section or paragraph about efforts to change the official name back to Wolastoq, or, if appropriate, in the lede. The way to recognize the name is not to create a WP:POVFORK though.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, if the former common name pre-colonization and the attempts to change the name are notable, then they can be in the main article. The comparison to the French name comes from the fact that neither name is the English common name, although of course there are no significant attempts to rename the river in English to its French name. JM (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the name is officially changed, the wiki article might not change due to common name. Examples are Turkey and Ivory Coast. There are lots of other examples out there where the common name and official name aren't the same. Anyways, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it if the name is ever officially changed. Masterhatch (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Wikipedia goes by common name, not official name. JM (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of persistent disruptive editing, I question both characterization of this river history as a POV fork, and it's relevance to present renaming discussions, since its creation was motivated solely to preserve, in intact format, material deleted from the Saint John River article by a single editor based on interpretation of WP:WikiProject Rivers guidelines. Thewellman (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because even the title and opening sentence are POV. Paraphrasing, but "Wolastoq is a river in the Dawnland" is not at all in conventional geography. Neither of those terms are common names. If it weren't a POVFORK, it would say "Saint John River is a river in New Brunswick and Maine" or something.
Regardless if it's a POVFORK or not (although I believe it is), if material is deleted from the Saint John River article and there is a consensus to keep it out, then people shouldn't go create another article on the same river with that deleted material, because that makes two articles covering the same subject differently. I notice that you've now voted merge, so you must see a similar problem by now. JM (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As should be clear from this discussion, I preferred merge from the onset; but drafted this amplifying history article at the suggestion of the editor who deleted the material. The consensus was to put the history in a different article. Disagreement appears to have arisen about the title of that history article. Thewellman (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant text, then salt. "Saint John River" is the official name in both countries. No need to confuse readers with two articles about the same topic. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the Human history section of the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article, but retain as a redirect. WP:SALTing this unique indigenous name, in the absence of persistent disruptive recreation, would be a disrespectful continuation of European Christian devaluation of the ethnicity of the river valley's indigenous people. Thewellman (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't agree with a merge nor do I think the article has to be a POV fork; it should be rewritten if possible. It states "it remains a cultural centre of the Wabanaki Confederacy to this day" so if it was rewritten to support that, then it would be its unique article. I wrote a similar article at Bdóte which explains how it is culturally significant to Dakota people and something similar could be done to this article if there's sources to support it.  oncamera  (talk page) 21:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that your article seems to be on a subject that is not covered elsewhere, whereas this article is about the Saint John River under a different name but with a very conspicuous First Nations POV. It can't be rewritten and saved because no matter how it is rewritten it still covers the exact same river under a different, and non-English, name. JM (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article covered why it's "a cultural centre of the Wabanaki Confederacy to this day", it would be its own article and not just covering the river. I see on this site, Wolastoq National Historic Site of Canada:
    • "as the river running the length of their territory, it has nurtured the Wolastoqiyik physically, culturally and spiritually over millennia. Tradition tells that the watershed itself was created by a great man who saved the people and brought water to them by felling a tree on the monster Aglebe’m, and the Gluskup stories record the creation of many of the river’s features;"
    • "Wolastoq means “the Beautiful River” in the Maliseet language, while Wolastoqiyik means “the People of the Beautiful River”. While this territory includes many sites of settlement, communication, resource utilization, and spirituality, it is specifically the Wolastoq itself, its lakes and tributaries that connects these sites and unites the Wolastoqiyik as a nation. The watershed represents the traditional territory of the Wolastoqiyik and includes many sites of settlement, communication, resource utilization and spirituality. The many Indigenous place names throughout the watershed link past and present, complementing elders’ stories of traditional uses and evidence from archaeology."
    • "places along its length speak to the importance of “the Beautiful River” to the Wolastoqiyik over time and space, including their 17th-century habitation at Menahkwesh near the mouth of the river; their Grand Council Chamber and annual gathering spot on Kani Uten, an island at the head of tide; and on land located at the divide between the middle and upper parts of the river valley that became part of a Wolastoqkew reserve in 1801, at the upper part of the river, on River Road, Tobique First Nation."
    With more research on this topic, it can accurately cover Wolastoqiyik continued history to this location that belongs at this article name and not at Saint John River (Bay of Fundy).  oncamera  (talk page) 21:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a consensus here that language imitating or reflecting the practice of a First Nations "land acknowledgement" would be non-neutral and inappropriate on Canadian city articles. I believe it could be extended to an article about a river. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? This isn't a land acknowledgement and has no relevancy to writing an article that explains the history and cultural significance that a tribe has to a sacred location; Native peoples' history is embedded in the land and the two are intrinsically connected. Writing about the history, oral traditions that go back thousands of years is not the same as a white government putting a land acknowledgment on their website. I can rewrite this article using sources that go over the bullet points listed above in the same format as Bdóte if it's not salted.  oncamera  (talk page) 22:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history or cultural significance of the river should be contained in the article about the river. If that article gets so long that it can't be contained there, a neutral sub-article (ie fork) titled something like History of the Saint John River could be created. But until that happens, historical, anthropological and cultural information should be in the main article. If editors there can't be convinced that it belongs there, then a WP:POVFORK that looks at the river only from an indigenous perspective is not the answer.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wolastoq should be written beyond the river itself and include the Wolastoqiyik relationship to the river, valleys and tributaries since their geographical relationship isn't bound to simply the river itself per Wolastoq National Historic Site of Canada, which is a Canadian government website. This article could even be redirected to Wolastoq National Historic Site of Canada, which shouldn't be a redirect to the river. The Canadian government sees it as a "Designation of National Historic Significance", not as the river.  oncamera  (talk page) 23:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The national historic site covers most of NB (thousands of square kms). It seems like a way of giving some limited recognition to the historic territory of the Maliseet and perhaps to drumb up tourism in the area. Why can't information about the Maliseet's historic territory and their relationship with it be dealt with in the article about them? Insofar as it relates to the river itself, in that article? This seems like a pretty obvious POV fork.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wolastoq National Historic Site of Canada is different from Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) just like Pipestone National Monument is different from Pipestone, Minnesota. As its recognized by the Canadian government as a significant heritage site, it's not a "POV fork" to write about Wolastoqiyik significance of Wolastoq as its own article.  oncamera  (talk page) 00:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is significant coverage and it's not OR, having an article about the national historic site is fine. What's not fine is having an article about a river when there is already a pre-existing article about that same river except this new article frames it from a First Nations POV. The article is about the river, not the historic site or the cultural area or the ethnic group. JM (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous sources for Wolastoq as a historic site that go into great scholarly detail:
 oncamera  (talk page) 02:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a well-developed article, which has potential for further development as outlined above. There are plenty cultural geography articles; no reason to eliminate this one. Yuchitown (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
This discussion isn't about what the article "could be", it's about what it is "right now", and if you read the article, it mostly documents the history and geography of the river, which duplicates content at Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). User:Yuchitown, why should we have two "well-developed" articles on exactly the same topic? If your point is, in fact, that this river has unique mythical/religious significance to First Nations people, which some editors like User:Oncamera or User:Masterhatch are arguing, then this could be added to Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). A discussion about the naming dispute could also be added to Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). No one has said these topics are not important, or should not be included somewhere on Wikipedia. It's just that...decisions on Wikipedia are not made based on feelings or politics or what "could be", they are based on what is in the best interest of Wikipedia's readers, and having two articles about exactly the same topic--one using a common, officially-recognized name, and one without--does not advance that cause. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can start adding the new information about the cultural significance of the heritage site as I posted a number of sources to do so. The heritage site is recognized by the Canadian government. Your renaming rant seems to be about something neither I nor Yuchitown are talking about. Please refrain from making strawman arguments against us.  oncamera  (talk page) 11:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m voting “Keep” based on exactly what it now. It’s well cited and notable. Yuchitown (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
That's ignoring the fact that it has the exact same subject as another article but under a POV name. Yes, it's well-cited and notable, but it's a duplicate article except with a POV. JM (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Wolastoq National Historic Site or something, per oncamera and Yuchitown. While the article does contain reduplicated content, it should be expanded and rewritten to be more about the river as a heritage site rather than a fork of the main article.
PersusjCP (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the Wolastoq National Historic Site is not a park or something but essentially the entire Canadian portion of the Saint John River Valley. The government site describes a broad area including public, private and indiginous lands that make up [t]he entire drainage system has nurtured the Wolastoqiyik (ie the Maliseet). In my view this should be dealt with in the Maliseet article or the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article. But if not, something like Wolastoq National Historic Site or Saint John River Valley (region) might be okay. Leaving the article at its current title, is going to welcome an article that looks at the region/historic site only from an indigenous perspective. That is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is about. If this article's content remains, it must do so somewhere where a WP:NPOV will be followed, and where the topic is covered from a broad perspective.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a thought, and I agree with 'Keep, but would it be easier to draftify and allow editors to make the changes suggested?
I think we shouldn't ignore the significance of this historic cultural place to First Nations people. I could see if it was completely unsourced but that obviously isn't the case. I do think it should avoid being solely about the river or that risks being a fork of the main article. But I think what is proposed by oncamera and Yuchitown would make sure the article is original enough and display the historical significance of the river and site to First Nations people that would benefit the encyclopedia. The article subject is notable and while I don't believe the intention of those in opposition of keeping the article is to downplay its historical significance that often is the result to the detriment of Wikipedia, our readers, and our Indigenous editors who are here to improve Wikipedia in good faith while also increasing the visibility of topics that have an affect on their lives personally and their communities. There is no reason to be insensitive even if you oppose keeping the article. --ARoseWolf 19:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goettems (surname)

Goettems (surname) (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 looks fine on the surface, falls apart on further examination. First of all, the name fails WP:NNAME. More importantly, almost nothing comes up when I google anything with "Goettems" or "Goettems family" in it. The sources seem to be lists and mentions, nothing substantial or establishing notability. Several assertions throughout the article make me think that it could have been created by a family member (no solid evidence for this, of course). Just seems like a totally unremarkable family tree. I could probably write something similar about my own family and make it as verbose. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd point to this policy WP:IAR since I think the other rules that are being cited here are bureaucratic, legalistic, and are getting in the way of maintaining a quality encyclopedia. If the information is accurate and backed up with a reference, an article really should not be deleted. It should definitely be improved upon as additional sources are found. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply You think notability guidelines are bureaucratic? I cannot find any sources online about this family. It is a random family tree possibly created by a member that does not belong on Wikipedia. Accurate, referenced, and notable, which you have omitted, are the basic critera. I don't know why you think notability doesn't matter. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is consensus below that the sources discussed are sufficient to establish notability under the GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Curtis Hamilton (American football)

Curtis Hamilton (American football) (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)

Restored PROD from 2020. I agree with the PROD's rationale: Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:NACTOR. Draftifying is an acceptable WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a fundamental disagreement on whether or not sources present in the article establish GNG. It would help if sources brought up in this discussion received more of a review by other editors. Right now though, I don't see suport for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - although many of the mentioned sources contain interview material, most of them also include factual prose. Besides, it's a real stretch to say that interviews published in reliable sources are definitionally non-independent - the guideline linked above (WP:IS) only mentions interviews once, in an entirely different context. Hatman31 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2024_January_17&oldid=1196322052"