Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 22: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:03, 22 May 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 21	May 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep‎. No rationale. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Griffin

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

Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 16:03, 22 May 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 redirect‎ to Danny Ortiz. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josue Danny Ortiz Trophy

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

Award fails WP:GNG and WP:NAWARD. Extremely limited sources that even mention the award; the two in the story include WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in discussion of Danny Ortiz. Additional sources not included are also trivial mentions that do not provide significant coverage. Propose to redirect to Danny Ortiz. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Guatemala. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danny Ortiz as possible search term. Giant Snowman 19:22, 24 May 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Speech Prof

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

A search returned only primary sources; I could not find any evidence that he meets GNG. JSFarman (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's not a useful source in the article for notability with some blatantly unreliable such as LinkedIn, Bored Panda and The Social Strategy which is an influencer agency. S0091 (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a good faith, i can see the subject passes WP:BASIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeltPees (talk • contribs) 03:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BASIC still requires reliable independent secondary sources with non-trivial coverage which is not met. S0091 (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See related AfD (same article creator, MeltPees) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayathri Vivekanandan —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only Google News results are for the same event + one paragraph for a different event, and I don't think the outlets are reliable either. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any sources which meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A community college instructor is extremely unlikely to pass WP:PROF, and we have no independent evidence that he even is a community college instructor, leaving only WP:GNG as a possibility. But dubiously-reliable coverage of a single event isn't good enough for that either. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indications of notability for GNG or PROF. Only sources I could find are trivial or primary, and it's difficult to nail down anything about this person that is actually reliable even when it comes to fact-of statements. nf utvol (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks more like WP:TRIVIALMENTION -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As others have said, there aren't any good sources. I know this for a fact because I created this draft (Draft:The Speech Prof) back in October and determined there weren't enough sources for a good page. It appears that MeltPees has copy-pasted a few of my drafts into the main space without any changes--some of which, like this one, don't meet GNG. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:00, 29 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take My Muffin

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

Lack of notability. Search throws up nothing obvious; cites are less than convincing. TheLongTone (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing I find is strictly to crypto or animation blog sites, none of which are useful for notability. What's also used in the article is not in RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Cryptocurrency. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The articles on AnimationMagazine and CoinIdol seem significant. The claim that it was the 1st series created with the support of a cryptocurrency community is backed for ex by. https://medium.com/@kat123/what-is-take-my-muffin-c734f48266c6 and https://medium.com/@chinedukalu66/take-my-muffin-a-blockchain-based-nft-animation-project-with-the-potential-to-revolutionize-the-e73b125a8484 ; also see https://www.awn.com/news/new-episode-take-my-muffin-hits-youtube, https://thevrsoldier.com/bluelight-aims-to-gamify-the-take-my-muffin-animation-series-betting-on-the-strong-degames-trend/ and the claim itself might add some kind of notability to the production. A redirect to the only creator who has a page, if really that is considered insufficient, maybe? (I think it meets GNG, though) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Medium is not a reliable source and the VR soldier is a press release. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, which leaves us with Animation Film Magazine and some sources on the page, and a claim at notability backed by some sources. Also a redirect to Pavel_Muntyan#Filmography should be considered, so that I take advantage of this comment to indicate I am opposed to deletion.:D -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Traumnovelle (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - plain lack of WP:SIGCOV. One good source makes this WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 14:31, 4 June 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 redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KBGU-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Missouri. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: This station has a longer history than many other DTV America/HC2/Innovate stations, but most of that was as a non-notable TBN repeater — and of course, everything after that era is the usual all-national-services with no local content or significant coverage. Another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination from 2023 (which is why a subsequent PROD was declined, leading to this nomination). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 22 May 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 06:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda Smash Invitational

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

Non-notable cricket tournament which fails WP:GNG, WP:NCRIC, and WP:EVENT. AA (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AA (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is what looks to be WP:GNG on the tournament in media, although a lot of it from Bermudian related sources. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know what Rugbyfan found to consider a "keep" vote. The highest to SIGCOV I can found is this. Other sources found in the article and google news are just about WP:ROUTINE announcements like- Bermuda Smash to feature 4 teams/Bermuda Cricket to host inaugural edition bla bla blah According to me, it is nowhere near to pass WP:GNG. As AA mentioned, it's an unofficial minor league, so no reason to keep it. Robo^Cric Let's chat 12:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Robocric's assessment. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:34, 13 June 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 Allmusic sources are a start, but consensus appears to be in favor to delete the article. Malinaccier (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Najma Akhtar

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Dowrylauds (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage found for a musician, this appears to be a different person [1]. The sourcing used in the article now isn't enough to meet notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in this reliable AllMusic staff written bio here it states that her second album reached No. 4 on the Billboard World Music chart and that another of her albums sold 50,000 copies in Japan. Some album reviews here, and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:49, 6 June 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 Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Applied and presented sources fail GNG, ANYBIO and NMUSIC; nothing approaching RS covering this BLP. BusterD (talk) 17:07, 17 June 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 Mexican Professional Baseball Hall of Fame. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the Mexican Professional Baseball Hall of Fame

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

Merge with Mexican Professional Baseball Hall of Fame - the parent article is not that detailed except for a detail of how people are elected to it so I don't see any particular reason for there to be a seperate page for inductees. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I'm not in favor of deletion at all. I think having all this info on one page is a better approach. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PM for merge requests. Conyo14 (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's very rarely used, this is generally an okay place to have these discussions. A lot more people see it. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Conyo14, thank you for the info. I was not aware of WP:PM. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Baseball, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This can also be procedurally closed and a merge discussion opened per Conyo14. If this is done, please ping me so I can comment there. However, this is the venue currently open for me to make my !vote. Frank Anchor 19:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Separate page is not necessary. And given the disfunction of WP:PM for merge requests, I understand using AfD to seek a merge. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:02, 25 May 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 without prejudice to opening a new AfD or any other sort of discussion (e.g., move or merge) upon further discussion of the issues raised below. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment

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

Fails GNG and NORG. No sources found meeting WP:SIRS, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article does not indicate any engagements in which the unit was notable.

Source eval table:

Comments	Source
Blog post/timeline, fails WP:RS, does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth	*https://civilwarintheeast.com/confederate-regiments/north-carolina/6th-north-carolina-infantry-regiment/
Enthusiast website, fails WP:RS	*https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/6th_nc_volunteers_regiment.html
Troop register, fails WP:IS, SIGCOV. Government troop registers do not show notability	*https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/Register_of_North_Carolina_Troops_1861.pdf
Fails WP:IS, WP:RS, Memories written down in 1901 source states, "WRITTEN BY MEMBERS OF THE RESPECTIVE COMMANDS."	*https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/Histories_of_the_Several_Regiments_and_Battalions_from_NC_in_the_Great_War_Volume_I_Walter_Clark_1901.pdf
Troop register, fails WP:IS, SIGCOV. Government troop registers do not show notability	Register of North Carolina Troops, 1861, by John Spelman page 13.
Duplicate of above ref	Capt. Lawson Harrill on April 9, 1901, page 786-808 in the "History of the Several Regiments and Battalions from North Carolina in the Great War-'65-Volume 1.

Ping me if IS RS with SIGCOV are found. // Timothy :: talk 17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You might find more sources if you search the 16th North Carolina, which is apparently what this regiment was reorganized as in June 1861. The 16th doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article, which is interesting given its combat history (Antietam, Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, and others). It might be worth rewriting the article for the 16th North Carolina, noting its origins as the 6th Volunteers. Intothatdarkness 00:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:This sounds like a good solution. If @PaulusHectorMair: feels this is a good solution and wants to pursue it, I will support drafting as "16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" or another appropriate title. The author is new, I'm not sure they know this discussion is taking place, PaulusHectorMair if you could reply here with your thoughts, even if it is just to let us know you are aware of the discussion. // Timothy :: talk 00:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue, Intothatdarkness, and PaulusHectorMair: - Let's hold up a minute on this. There's a conflation going on here - the "6th North Carolina Volunteers" was the unit that became 16th Regiment per this but there's also a separate 6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Per this brief NPS listing it had quite a bit of fighting, and the State of North Carolina published an entire book on this 6th Infantry. Hog Farm _Talk 01:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply So if I'm following this right:

This article (as currently written) is about the unit that was reorganized into the 16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Its currently named "6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" but it was actually the "6th North Carolina Volunteers"

There is another unit "6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" that is unconnected to the current article or the 16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment.

Let me know if I've got something wrong. // Timothy :: talk 01:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, I thought about pinging you, but didn't want to run into the whole canvassing thing with AfD. The ACW isn't one of my major fields, especially Confederate units, so I just did a basic search. I wondered about the Volunteer/Infantry thing, but I've seen it used interchangeably with other units. I of course defer to your expertise. Intothat darkness 12:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am indeed aware of this discussion and have been checking it every few hours or so. I would be open to pursuing an article on the 16th, as this was my original goal. I should have realized sooner that the two regiments were different, and frankly I am questioning my competence for such a silly mistake. PaulusHectorMair (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Making silly mistakes is part of the job... :) // Timothy :: talk 01:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that the unit confusion is sorted, is there sourcing for this unit?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:16, 22 May 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Tjåland

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Albert Tjåland (2nd nomination)

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

This succumbed to an AFD before, but since then it has been recreated due to "coverage in international media". It happened at a time when the player was looking to be moving up in the football hierarchy, but with all due respect to the player, the career has stagnated, which I think allows us to see the subject in a clearer light. In an encyclopedic sence, Albert Tjåland fails WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:TOOSOON, WP:SIRS and as a consequence WP:SPORTCRIT.

ABT was a child whom international media took a novelty interest to.
His football career has not panned out. He plays on the fourth tier, has never played a league game for a first team, only reaching as far as appearing 6 times on Bryne's bench - as well as playing a cup game for Molde, which for WP:PEACOCK reasons is called "a professional debut". Nothing he has done remotely resembles a significant accomplishment within sport.
While there was coverage in many countries, there reports about various accomplishments in children's games lack significance, and was all the more packed with speculation and hot air. A big breakthrough is not currently looming on the horizon, and while it might of course happen one day, we have the too soon guideline for a reason.
The press coverage was exclusively motivated by him having a famous relative. Albert and Erling have similar names and likenesses, and joined the same club (Molde) as a youth player. Take the relative out of the equation, and what are you left with? Notability is not inherited from relatives. Geschichte (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant coverage, just churnalism. As I took the time to explain why I think so above, I think you should explain your view as well. Geschichte (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You call it churnalism, I call it journalism. Ortizesp (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Ortizesp. Young player with ongoing career with pro Norwegian top flight team and many good sources already. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My further thoughts are that the keep opinions are annulled by their lack of explanation and non-existing response as to the nomination statement, which detailed a failure of several policies. "significant coverage" and "many good sources" are unfounded opinions; "ongoing career with pro Norwegian top flight team" is false, Tjåland has an ongoing career with a semi-pro B team on the fourth tier. Geschichte (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please, especially please provide the significant coverage alleged
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Each of the keep assertions in this process make claims of notability. Let's examine those claims: 1) Passes WP:GNG with WP:Significant coverage? The burden is on those wanting to keep, and this page is wanting sourcing which directly details, as WP:SPORTSPERSON requires. 2) Young player with ongoing career with pro Norwegian top flight team and many good sources? So what? None of those adjectives or sources directly details the subject in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. We have stats and routine sportsnews mostly linked to a relative. This is a biography for a living person. Delete. BusterD (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify—This is very obviously an example of WP:TOOSOON. Anwegmann (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject currently does not have the independent, reliable coverage providing WP:SIGCOV of the subject. As such, this BLP does not meet the WP:GNG. The first 5 sources are primary, while most of the remainder are routine. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 02:21, 30 May 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rohilkhand

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

The article fails WP:N and WP: SIGCOV, no mention of "Battle of Rohilkhand" in the sources which are cited poorly through keyword searching and contains original research. I have checked the sources and nowhere I found a thing related to this event, clearly a WP:HOAX article. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 11:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax or at best nonsensical SYNTH. the creator has produced a run of dodgy Indian military history articles. Mccapra (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for sources provides zero results on Internet Archive for "Battle of Rohilkhand" or "Battle of Katehar". The only battle of Rohilkhand I am aware of is the 1794 one in the Second Rohilla War. Sources used in the article don't appear to actually discuss the topic. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:47, 25 May 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 redirect‎ to List of ambassadors of Israel to Spain. As an alternative to deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kutner

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Israel, Andorra, Spain, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Google News yields very little. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree. Not enough here to justify the article. Fails WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of ambassadors of Israel to Spain per ATD and CHEAP. gidonb (talk) 01:06, 29 May 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. I'm closing this as delete as opposed to redirect because the suggested target only includes a passing mention. The passing mention being "...who took over the role from Lironne Bar-Sade in August 2023, and the Irish ambassador to Israel is Sonya McGuinness." – That's it, that's the entirety of the mention of this person at the suggested target. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lironne Bar-Sade

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Israel, Ireland, and Latvia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on 2 primary sources. Google News yields 2 passing mentions. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ireland–Israel relations#History, where her importance was organically noted. Agreeing with nom that this importance insufficient for the GNG. Still, a redirect will be more appropriate than deleting per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. gidonb (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 06:51, 29 May 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legrek Parond

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

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources, and WP:BEFORE did not reveal any. Article was previously sourced with a longer collection of Amazon links to what appear to be his works. Appears to call himself an author, CEO, rapper, and singer. However, I can't find anything to establish notability in any of these fields. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Jamaica, and United States of America. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources found are his website, amazon links, then various social media. This is PROMO, with no RS found. What's now in the article are primary works. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 22 May 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. Owen× ☎ 23:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investigate Europe

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

None of the sources that mention the subject cover it in depth, so fails the WP:SIRS test, and so fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations, and Europe. UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As AFC reviewer, I'm a keep here. The article probably needs a bit of work, but it does appear to meet WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals on the surface, and appears to have been used and cited in a number of different reliable publication, as well as received coverage in various non-English sources, mainly French and Germans (see fr:Investigate_Europe for some more examples of this). I think that WP:GNG is met in this instance. Mdann52 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mdann52 is probably right. We tend to be more lenient with articles about sources anyway, because they have immediate practical value to editors (primarily when we are evaluating the reliability of sources for use in other articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mdann52. After reviewing several sources in the article, it's clear that criteria 3 and 4 of NMEDIA for newspapers are met, and possibly 1 too. (And yes, that's "just an essay", but in this case it provides a compelling reasoning for keeping this article. Also applicable is the similar essay WP:NNEWSPAPER, which clarifies that Many periodicals are notably influential without being the subject of secondary sources.) Toadspike [Talk] 05:37, 12 June 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. I see a consensus to delete this article, especially given some of the uncertainty brought up by David Eppstein. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Mehrpour

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

Lacks significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The current sources do not provide the required coverage about the subject, as they are either passing mentions, profiles, or not reliable. GSS ^💬 10:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Iran. GSS ^💬 10:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This subject deserves a Wikipedia Page as per WP:Academics. It fulfills The criteria for academic personals.
Shortcuts
- WP:NACADEMIC
- WP:NECONOMIST

As per the criteria, a subject is considered notable if it fulfills one of the listed criteria. In this case the subject fulfills 1 or more of the WP:Academics criteria as following.

Criteria 1a: Highly Cited publications

•The subject is among top 2% of highly cited scientists according to the Stanford/Elsevier database. 1

•The subject has also high citation metrics on Google scholar. 2 Here below is the list of some scholars with equal status having Wikipedia page and lesser citations on google scholar than this subject for comparison:

1. Ahmad Reza Djali, his Google Scholar Metrics 3

2. Saba Valadkhan, her google scholar Metrics 4

3. Neda Alijani, his google scholar Metrics 5

Criteria 1d: The subject has served as editorial board member of known scientific journals. 6 7 8 9 10

Criteria 1e. The subject had been selected in competitive fellowships 11 12

Criteria 2: The subject has been awarded academic awards. 13

As per the criteria for academic peoples, the subject is notable enough for having separate Wikipedia page. Joidfybvc (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Joidfybvc (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Sorry, but I think you are trying to hard:

1a: None of those mentioned qualify just on h-factor. However, Djali is notable politically, Valadkhan has major awards as does Alijani.
1d: No evidence in article. In any case just being on an editorial board does not qualify as notable.
1e: All his fellowships are minor, none meet the criteria.
2: Minor awards which also don't meet notability criteria.

Ldm1954 (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 10:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I'm not sure the academic awards are notable; his publication records seems ok. Just passing academic notability. Lots of fluff now in the article, but we can edit that. Oaktree b (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am changing my !vote as delete because of the insufficient sources to meet WP:NPROF. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First off, nobody deserves an article on Wikipedia. We are a private charity, not a government agency, and in 2024, everyone knows, or should know that, so free speech protections don't apply. Secondly, I don't see any evidence that he passes the WP:PROF test, either by citations in an index, or reaching a distinguished or full professorship. Finally, the burden is now on the defenders of an article that a living person has gotten significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, which I do not see here. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The claims made earlier that his publication record is strong are inappropriate -- his h-factor is moderate but not notable. None of his awards are major. He definitely does not pass WP:NPROF; it is not a close call, he is far below the bar. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have many researchers around the globe who are working in different fields. Only those who get coverage in reliable and secondary sources get to have an article here. I agree with both of the users above that he does not pass the threshold for notability. Keivan.f^Talk 21:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have never recommended that an article be rejected on the basis of their h-factor alone. I tend to look at other metrics, and in particular I look at the kinds of articles published and the rigor and selectivity of the journals that they appear in. Unfortunately, this subject's most widely cited publications are all review articles. Such work represents important contributions to the literature, but does not confer notability for our purposes here under C1 of WP:NPROF as it does not represent contributions to new knowledge. Incidentally reaching full professorships is not, by itself, sufficient to satisfy WP:NPROF - but someone who has done that often does end up meeting one or more of the six criteria, or gains notability as an author instead. Anyway, the subject does not meet the WP:NPROF standard in any of its criteria, and the article should be deleted. Qflib (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have a strong opinion on his notability, but I have some concerns instead about verifiability of the current article. It lists him as working at some institutions in Iran. A Google Scholar profile under the same name [2] describes a toxicologist who, it claims, works in the US, at Wayne State University. The only verification of this that I can find is a Wayne State poison center hotline newsletter [3] stating that they hired someone by this name last year, but he does not otherwise appear on their web site. Is the Wayne State toxicologist the same person as the Iranian toxicologist? If so, what can we verifiably say about working in the US instead of Iran now? If they are different people, is the publication record mixed up between them? I don't know, but these are the things we should be able to verify from reliable sources to have an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 10 June 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 redirect‎ to Slovakia at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Luge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marián Skupek

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

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Luge as ATD because I could not find enough in-depth coverage for this athlete to meet WP:GNG. I only found SME while the rest are brief mentions and profile database sources, both types of which are not independent. He was not even in the top three (?) luge winners of mentioned tournament. This might be WP:TOOSOON situation. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also incoming links from multiple EUropean Championships and multiple World Championships. Geschichte (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. My last comment was made quite quickly, and now I had the chance to elaborate more. He participated in the following European Championships: 2021, 2022, 2023 and the following World Championships: 2021, 2023, 2024. In addition, he won a gold medal at the 2022 FIL Junior European Luge Championships which gained some attention for being Slovakia's first gold medal in that championship. None of these achievements would hold enough weight on their own, but together I think they just might do. Then there are the sources. [4] [5] [6] [7] (less) [8] (more passing) [9]. These were some of them, partly from a news agency (and I don't understand Slovak by any means), but at least they give some biographical overview. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Source #1 can't be accessed at the moment; Source #2 and #3 are duplicated from the SME one I mentioned; Source #6 looks like a blogspot. I also was wondering if you actually use a translator or try to avoid it. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources provided above don't seem to be enough coverage to pass the general notability guidelines. A few more sources would do it, but I am not seeing it here. Malinaccier (talk) 20:33, 12 June 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Luge: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect per the nom as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. This protects the BLP subject, maintains page history and allows any editor with better information to improve this article when this athlete makes news. WP:SPORTSPERSON instructs that at least one reliable source must significantly cover the subject. We're not there so far. BusterD (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per arguments above. I'm not satisfied with the level of coverage identified so far. JoelleJay (talk) 23:46, 17 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huttonia (country)

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

Not able to find anything on Google. May be a hoax, not sure.I am taking this to AfD in good faith because the article creator has over 2000 edits and appear to have familiarity with functioning of Wikipedia. Hitro talk 09:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's a direct translation of the Dutch page which has been around since 2006 and had a few different editors. There's one Google result for the book that's used as a reference. Need a Dutch speaker here. Orange sticker (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is only one reference, and it is not independent of the subject. Ira Leviton (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft, this topic is definitely interesting and probably notable, but it doesn't have enough sources. If it never gets enough sources to meet notability guidelines, I suppose it just never leaves draft. Love, Cassie. (Talk to me!) 18:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it just never leaves draft. That is simply not true, since drafts can only be stored for six months and after that they are deleted. See WP:Drafts#Deleting a draft. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete right now, it's got one source, and it's primary, as does the Dutch version, and a before search brings up plants. Happy to draftify if someone wants to work on it, but it's not good enough for mainspace at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 20:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't know if this is a hoax or a WP:MADEUP, but it clearly doesn't belong here. Owen× ☎ 20:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are quite a few sources on Delpher yet these are not independent of the subject. The book is written by the person who lived in the huts so not independent either. The book or the author/builder may be notable yet that isn't the subject of this AfD. gidonb (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge/Move It says it's imaginary in the article. It's a subject of the dudes life, and a book. I'm sure it's well covered in an article about the book, or the article about the guy. This just needs a redirect and done. Somebody should have just done this.James.folsom (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to merge into. A move would technically be possible, however, the book or person are insufficiently the focus of the brief entry. So it is inherently wrong. Any such articles should already be a new effort. Moreover, the title is wrong as Huttonia was never a country. As a "micronation" it "is" an imaginary state. So this should not become a redirect of sorts. Delete makes most sense. gidonb (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James.folsom, I came here with the intention of suggesting a Redirect. Alas, neither the book nor its author appear notable enough for an article, leaving deletion as the only viable option. Owen× ☎ 13:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was a little brusque, I support delete if all other options don't exist. James.folsom (talk) 16:27, 26 May 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. Malinaccier (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Aramaic

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating this page for deletion, as there was no input from any third party last time (closed as "no consensus").

Motivation from last time still holds:

Fails WP:GNG
See my first entry on the article's talk page here.
The article mostly gives examples of Syriac language used in Lebanon. The intended topic of the article is an Aramaic language (probably Western) spoken in Lebanon in earlier times.
From my knowledge, this language/dialect is not documented, thus not discussed in Aramaic studies.
Few to none WP:RS discusses this "Lebanese Aramaic" or "Lebanese Syriac" or "Surien" language. Content much based on this article, not a WP:RS. Shmayo (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lebanon, and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As already stated in the previous nomination an article about a language is notable. The article discusses both the vernacular Aramaic and classical Syriac as the two are tightly connected and furthermore the term Syriac was used at time to refer to Aramaic. Wikipedia does not care about what you do or do not believe from your own knowledge (WP:VERIFYOR) but relies on reliable sources which are already provided in the page. Even if Iskander’s source is contestable Bawardi and Wardini both use the term “Lebanese Aramaic” which you have conveniently left out. I already stated in the previous nomination you are free to edit the page, as everyone is, but you seem to have ignored this as you did my counters to your same points in the previous nomination which makes it seem like you are nominating this based on WP:WINNING rather than anything else. Regardless, I have amended the page to help distinct between the colloquial Aramaic and classical Syriac as that seems to be where part of the confusion is coming from. Red Phoenician (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to accuse me of anything. There was no third-party opinion last time, which is what I am seeking here. To me, there is no "significant coverage" on this topic, thus no need for a separate Lebanese Aramaic article. Western Aramaic was obviously spoken in Lebanon, and Syriac is a part of the Maronite church - but a separate article, heavly based on that Iskander article and some WP:OR (and plenty information solely on Syriac)... I do not see how this is notable with one reference to "Lebanese Aramaic" in Bawardi's book and another one in a project description by Wardini. Let's hope his research will give us some more insight in time. This is not comparable with e.g. CPA, which is actually discussed in Aramaic studies. Shmayo (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was the third-party opinion of user Maclearie so that is false. Again, this is a contradiction of “the topic has no sources except for the sources which explicitly mention it but let us just deem them irrelevant.” Not sure where the accusation of me adding original research comes from as I have cited all of the information I added but I would like to see a supposed example of such. Red Phoenician (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party as in someone not highly active in this topic (i.e. Lebanon). I have not stated anything about you, this is not about you, but the article. Why would "Syriac alphabet" be listed under writing system? For example. Shmayo (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why it is seen as bad if a user is more knowledgeable about said topic but you are right I made an error with the writing system and have corrected it. Red Phoenician (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please assume I know nothing about this topic. What sources are there that show this is a distinct dialect or language from the topic of Western Aramaic languages please? They don't have to be in English. Thanks. JMWt (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, besides a source from Wardini [10] and one from Bawardi [11] explicitly mentioning Lebanese Aramaic there is also the “Introduction to Aramean and Syriac Studies” by Akopian which mentions “the local Western Aramaic dialect” [12] as well as another source from Wardini discussing its “complex development which in some cases is parallel to, yet often distinct from, the development of its Modern West Aramaic cousins.” [13] Red Phoenician (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. Are any of those significant coverage as per the GNG? JMWt (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wardini's sources are specifically about the language. Red Phoenician (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing much offered in the way of sources. The best source is apparently one written about placenames in Aramaic, but this is hardly demonstrative of a distinct dialect of the language. JMWt (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source explicitly describes it as distinct so not sure where this is coming from. Red Phoenician (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's agree to disagree. JMWt (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:04, 6 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valmir Nafiu

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or any of the WP:SPORTS criteria. None of the other language wikis have sources that are either a)independent or b) provide significant coverage of the subject. Doing WP:BEFORE reveals only a few pieces of routine coverage. Out of the sources here: [1] and [2] go in depth, and seem to be independent. No clue about reliability.

[5],[6],[7],[9] aren't independent, due to being published by his former club.

[8] does not mention him.

[3]&[4] are just routine coverage mentioning that he played in a certain match.

[10] is a data base entry, which isn't in-depth.

This leaves us with two sources, both of which were published the last time this article was deleted.

(Disclaimer: found this page through a CCI, and I've deleted a paragraph over copyright concerns. The only source I deleted, however, also did not mention the subject.) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and North Macedonia. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources in the article are independent, as the first two are by the governing sports org. Still fails GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes the article has weak sources which are pretty much primary sources, but that doesn't negate the article, it needs a clean up. Besides you have other sources at de:Valmir Nafiu, [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], lots more with stuff on him, poor nomination, WP:BEFORE clearly not done correctly in my opinion.. Govvy (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The German wiki has 9 sources, 7 of which are not independent. Of the other 2, one is stats and the other contains little info on him. Your sources are interviews, non independent websites and match reports which isn't sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Did you actually read those sources? They clearly do not amount to GNG coverage. 1: interview by his football club N. 2: interview in Telegrafi with 1 independent sentence on him N. 3: his football club N. 4: part of 1 sentence in a routine transaction announcement N. 5: part of 1 sentence in a routine match recap N. 6: 1 sentence in a routine match recap N. If you're going to accuse others of being lazy with their BEFOREs maybe don't use such obviously garbage sources as examples of what they missed. JoelleJay (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 07:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I think important context is needed here... The sources do have secondary coevrage and even then if you look at Macedonian media it tends to cover players in the form of seemingly "routine" media (see [20], [21], and [22], as opposed to e.g. Indonesian media which tends to write about players in more long-form profiles). He has been covered by various Macedonian news outlets. As a result, I feel that the fact that he has received lots of coverage by many Macedonian outlets in the form of shorter seemingly "routine" articles ([23], [24], [25] etc, has Wikipedia pages in eight languages and has played in German Bundesliga, made 100+ appearances and helped Macedonian team win three keague titles and has ongoing career is enough all put together. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are "seemingly routine" because they are routine... those are all routine transaction announcements and match reports, which we see loads of for every footballer. Which source specifically meets SPORTCRIT's requirement for IRS SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, leaving aside the first three links, because they're not about this footballer, [10], as JoelleJay caught, is a site run by the governing sports organization and can't help show notability due to lack of independence. I clicked on a few links from [12], which is when I noticed that none of those pages had an author listed. Looking at the site a bit further, their about page reveals this:
Through "TEAM" readers receive original, exclusive, but primarily verified, reliable and accurate information. In addition to the team of professional sports journalists, the top Macedonian athletes in the role of columnists have their own space and say in "TEAM".

Given that the articles written by athletes don't seem labeled, we're going to have a really hard time verifying that anything in this site is independent. And, given that this is a WP:BLP, I don't think articles with unclear authorship can even be used. Can they?

And as for the links in [11]- The previews just seem routine, but I clicked on them all only to get 404 pages. I've been having lots of trouble with Internet Archive for the past day, and I don't feel like struggling with it for what seems to be, again, routine coverage.

@GiantSnowman I trust your judgement, and you obviously saw something I'm missing. Could you give me the sources you saw that show notability? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In fact, there seems to be a lack of independent sources that provide more in-depth coverage (the best one is from KF Shkendija's own website), but the recreation of the article does not seem to be in bad faith, SALT would be too much. Svartner (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartner:, For further context, see my comment above, (GiantSnowman has also changed his vote to keep). Thanks Das osmnezz (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the best source is from the player's own club. For me it is a case of weak keep, but it is on the limit to establish WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's always routine coverage, talking about parts a player played in a game, Cristiano Ronaldo has huge amounts of what you call routine coverage. You people voting to delete never look at the cumulative amount of sources. This players has more than enough cumulative sourcing to pass WP:BASIC. Govvy (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Obvious keep. Had a long, established first-team career, and the sources shown clearly meet WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? Because, so far, nobody's linked to any source that is independent, reliable, or gives WP:SIGCOV, so I'm not sure how they can count to the GNG. Could you please link the ones you found convincing? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Govvy's and Das osmnezz's comments above. Also, as Govvy argues immediately above, collective effect is important and real. Anwegmann (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Govvy gave no independent or significant sources- just interviews, database entries, and routine coverage. Das osmnezz also linked to no sources- just a search result, which was annoying seeing as they specifically filtered one of their search results to a non-independent site, but none of the sources seemed to help the subject pass the GNG. I would just like a link to one source that is independent, provides significant coverage, and is reliable. If the subject "clearly" passes the GNG, this should not be hard to provide, and we shouldn't have to fall on a "collaborative effort" style argument.

I also disagree with Govy's interpretation of WP:BASIC, which establishes that
trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability
but I suppose that's a point of policy for the closer to decide. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenLipstickLesbian: Firstly it would be polite to ping me when you talk about me, secondly, of the sources I posted, there are multiple independent sources. To say that of the sources I posted above are not independent is a false statement. I look at cumulative count per WP:BASIC, which has multiple published in bold! Followed by secondary sources that are reliable. Yes there are drips and drabs, but under the guise of BASIC you're allowed to hunt down all sources to build that cumulative count. I am using straight forward simple logic. The first part of BASIC is significant coverage, however that does not indicate it needs to be to one article and never has. There for you are allowed to determine sigcov over multiple articles. This is a constant battle and I really don't understand why seasoned Wikipedians constantly fall into the trap thinking that SIGCOV requires a full storied article, why understanding the BASIC rule allows it to built over multiple articles. I strongly suggest you read and re-read the first bullet point on WP:BASIC. Regards Govvy (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any independant source, sorry. --SGaurier (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Closer needs to take into account that this user was created on May 11 and 2 out of 3 of his eidts came in football AFDs... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—And it has not made any other contributions to Wikipedia before or after 28 May (as of 4 June). Anwegmann (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not saying there's any bad faith from anyone involved but I see it as WP:GAMEing the system to say that coverage is just news about signings and games. As Anwegmann and Govvy had been saying, why would media even be interested in those stories if this man didn't have some sort of a following? Anyway, here's a source from Hamburg's Morgenpost documenting his whole career, which is clearly not routine coverage [26]. And before anyone cries "local media", Hamburg has a metro population of 5 million and that newspaper's website is ranked #32 among German news sites. Please also search the native name "Валмир Нафиу", there are tons of results, you can't honestly say that they count for nowt because they are covering individual events over a sequence of several years. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this source actually from Morgenpost, or HSV? It's not on Morgenpost's official website (www.mopo.de). Rather, the URL is www.hsv24.mopo.de - thus implying it's some form of collaboration between the tabloid and the Naifu's former football club. While I appreciate the serious allegations you and others have made towards my conduct in this AFD, I still find myself questioning this source's independence. I also wonder why, if this man is obviously as notable as everybody is saying, why nobody can produce even one source that is independent, reliable, or in-depth. I have seen a lot of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:OTHERLANGS, and WP:MUSTBESOURCES type-arguments, however. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even though I didn't mention you by name: @Govvy, I tangentially mentioned you in the above comment, and you requested above that I ping you in these situations. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of Morgenpost's domain. I don't see how including the name of a football club on a website indicates that it is operated by the club, and something like that needs assertive proof rather than your gut feeling that it's non-independent, which seems to me to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even the newspaper's press releases about this website don't mention this supposed golden endorsement [27]. I imagine a lot of people buy/read that newspaper just for the football and it helps to have a specialist part of the domain. It's not serious allegations if people think that you're poo-pooing every single source until we find some 1,000-page biography or academic article on this player. I haven't argued WP:OTHERLANGS in the sense of saying foreign Wikipedias are reliable, because they aren't, but have you even searched for his name in his native language before I brought it up? Or Greek for his career in Cyprus? WP:BEFORE. Quite frankly, I'm not going to learn Macedonian to evaluate all of these sources, did you check them before [28] Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:15, 3 June 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 Erasmus Student Network. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus Student Network Armenia

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

Local branch of Erasmus Student Network, no independent notability. Broc (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Working on expanding the article. ESN Armenia is quite active and one of the more notable student organizations within the country. English publications may be limited as most of the content referencing the org is in Armenian. Will continue to expand with refs. Any help is appreciated :) Archives908 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a subsection of Erasmus Student Network. I do not think it is bad that the information is out there if verifiable and noteworthy enough to mention specifically, though ESN Armenia is hardly notorious enough to warrant their own WP article, considering that there are 44 national, and even more regional ESN network organisations. Note also that Erasmus Student Network Yerevan has also been created, and would merit the same treatment. --Konanen (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and Erasmus Student Network Yerevan into Erasmus Student Network. I can't find anything much other than social media or links to information and event involving the umbrella organisation in a search (including the sources in the article that I can read/translate), which suggests this is a local organisation not warranting it's own article. I note that none of the other national organisations have their own article, including ESN Russia and ESN UK, for example.— Iadmc ♫^talk 03:46, 6 June 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing

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

WP:PROMO - I believe not everything in this world deserves a WP page. No WP:LASTING —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Education, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to identify this as being a Pakistan initiative. — Maile (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable initiative initiated by the President of Pakistan. I think it should be kept. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it' was a cool project but I think we prioritize WP:GNG over WP:ATA. While there is some press coverage, BUT it's not sig/in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please do not rename an article that is being discussed at an AFD. It complicates closure and relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I understand the nominator's concerns, this clearly meets the GNG, and sources like [29] from 2021 show that it is still relevant to tech education in Pakistan. The article doesn't seem very promotional to me, and adding some of the criticism from that source I linked would help. This isn't some initiative that was announced and then disappeared – as far as I can tell, it is still operating and has a large number of students (in the thousands). Toadspike [Talk] 10:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added three sentences of (largely) criticism from that source. I hope that addresses some of the PROMO concerns. Toadspike [Talk] 10:32, 22 May 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. Sorry but I don't see any consensus here for any particular outcome and it's not the closer's role to impose what I think should be done with this article. I can always be renominated at a future date if the article is not improved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Álvarez (footballer)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Has only two datbase entry / stats sources. Main statement is that he was on the team for a South American championship but didn't play. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bolivia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From the DICCIONARIO BIOGRAFICO DEL FUTBOL BOLIVIANO (1930-2000):

"Nombre completo: Isaac Álvarez Moscoso. Apodo: La “Araña negra”. Nacimiento: Cochabamba, 6 de julio de 1933. Posición: Guardameta, No 1. Padres: ..... Esposa: ..... Hijos: Jorge Isaac, Jenny Carmiña, Martín Erick. Estudios: Primaria Escuela Carrillo, Secundaria Colegio Carrillo de Cochabamba. Otros Estudios: INSEF. Profesor de Educación Física. Cursos de Dirección Técnica. Clubes: En el Club 31 de Octubre (1963), de La Paz. Participación en la selección: Es Campeón Sudamericano de 1963. Jugó por la selección boliviana dos partidos oficiales (1963-1965) y fue batido en tres oportunidades. Es Campeón Sudamericano Invicto 1963. No tuvo participación oficial en dicho campeonato figurando en la banca. Dirección Técnica: Fue Preparador Físico en The 16 Strongest (1990). Otros Datos: Practicó el Atletismo, el Básquetbol, el Voleibol y el Fútbol. Distinciones: El gobierno mediante la repartición respectiva condecoró con la Medalla al Mérito Deportivo en el Grado de Caballero del Deporte, al cumplirse los 40 años de la conquista del XXI Campeonato Sudamericano. Además de ser acreedor a la pensión vitalicia de 4 sueldos mínimos mensuales."

There is also a bit of coverage here, which although not published in a reliable source, is definitely more evidence of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: What's wrong with the ~170 word encyclopedia entry listed above? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Based on Google Translate, it covers the names of his children and the schools he went to in brief list form, and then briefly covers his playing career and then his pension... it's not enough on its own. Giant Snowman 15:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It gives a decent enough bit of coverage for SIGCOV I think:

Full name: Isaac Álvarez Moscoso. Nickname: The “Black Spider”. Birth: Cochabamba, July 6, 1933. Position: Goalkeeper, No 1. Parents: ..... Wife: ..... Children: Jorge Isaac, Jenny Carmiña, Martín Erick. Studies: Primary School Carrillo, Secondary School Carrillo de Cochabamba. Other Studies: INSEF. Physical Education Teacher. Technical Management Courses. Clubs: At the 31 de Octubre Club (1963), in La Paz. Participation in the national team: He is the 1963 South American Champion. He played for the Bolivian team in two official matches (1963-1965) and was beaten three times. He is the 1963 Undefeated South American Champion. He had no official participation in said championship, appearing on the bench. Technical Direction: He was a Physical Trainer on The 16 Strongest (1990). Other Information: He played Athletics, Basketball, Volleyball and Soccer. Distinctions: The government, through the respective distribution, awarded the Medal of Sports Merit in the Degree of Knight of Sports, on the 40th anniversary of the conquest of the XXI South American Championship. In addition to being a creditor of the lifetime pension of 4 minimum monthly salaries

- Probably could use more sources though... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The above source is pretty comprehensive and he definetly has more offline sources, having won the 1963 South American Championship with the Bolivia national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:13, 14 May 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, Owen× ☎ 06:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete—One unsourced encyclopedia entry means very little. In my view, this does not come close to sustained and significant coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I actually think the encyclopedia entry does show prominence, especially as it mentions that he was given what seems to be a prominent sports medal by the government and that the Bolivian government granted him a lifetime pension for his sporting career. The blog post, while a blog, should also be considered here as it mentions he was "one of the glories" (of his club?). Considering that no Bolivian sources from the time have been searched, I'd lean towards keeping, considering that it is highly likely someone of such prominence would receive SIGCOV and we already arguably have SIGCOV in the encyclopedia entry for WP:SPORTCRIT. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make good points. I think a "no consensus" is probably the best outcome here, as this article needs a deeper dive. Anwegmann (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite backups for the encyclopedia. I understand what you mean but for the articles state currently, there is no SIGCOV. I also understand that you argue of possible existing sources, can you help digging? I can't give much weight of the encyclopedia. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Backups for the encyclopedia? What do you mean? Why is an encyclopedia discussing the most important Bolivian footballers not to be given any weight, especially when it says the government thought him to be such an important player that they granted him a lifetime pension? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I disagree with the no consensus outcome. How a whole discussion should be on an encyclopedia that didn't give much per WP:SIGCOV. The fact proven is that the footballer isn't notable to the measure of being entered as an article. There are much sources needed to prove all claims in the article as well as being direct of how sources are analyzed. This may meet GNG but for the fact that we can't say a little written about him is enough for citing sources. Its not even a biographical book. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:12, 31 May 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Chambers

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

This article has a lot of citations, but it's not as impressive as it first seems. Of the 36 pages cited: 3 are routine campaign coverage from local outlets, 1 is a Decision Desk HQ election results page, 9 are press releases or other pages on the Indiana Economic Development Corporation's website, 2 don't even mention Chambers, 2 are paywalled, 6 are campaign website citations, 5 take the format of "Brad Chambers announces ____ plan" and seem to be based off the aforementioned campaign website pages, and 2 are duplicates of other sources. The remaining few are more in-depth articles about his gubernatorial campaign or his appointment as state commerce secretary from Indiana-based publications (not anything he did in office, just his appointment). Nothing stands out about his candidacy that would warrant a standalone Wikipedia article; he was never a frontrunner and didn't really do anything noteworthy. And he certainly doesn't have any other argument for passing GNG, either via his (appointed) position as state commerce secretary or otherwise. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Indiana. Kpg jhp jm 07:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: State secretary of commerce is a notable position; we have enough for at least a basic article, maybe needs a rewrite, but the individual would meet political notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: On what basis are you arguing this? If it was a statewide elected office, you would be correct, but a statewide appointed official is not considered automatically notable. There are thousands of unelected positions in state government, they aren't all notable. Can you link me some other state secretaries of commerce who have Wikipedia pages? Or anyone else who's held an appointed position in Indiana state government that got a Wikipedia page solely on that basis? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not a ministerial position in the state government? Here in Ontario, the Minister of Commerce would get their own article. Elected or not, if it's a cabinet-level position, we've always held them to meet NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: In Indiana, the secretary of commerce and president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp. is part of the governor's cabinet. [30] AHoosierPolitico (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that still passed NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it not a member of the state's legislature? It would fall under here [31] Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Please try to familiarize yourself more with US politics before participating in discussions like these. No, the state secretary of commerce is not part of the state legislature, nor is it a particularly high-profile position. Again: if you're so confident that this position satisfies NPOL, you should be able to link some people who served as Indiana Secretary of Commerce (or any other equivalent appointed position in a US state's cabinet) who got a Wikipedia page on that basis alone. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)

Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES and Oaktree b. Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, etc.) in countries where executive and/or legislative power is devolved to bodies at that level. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (Alaska politician) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Baxter Jr. for precedent of state cabinet secretaries kept. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Struck TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what I explained above? I participated in both votes that you've linked, one had good coverage, the other doesn't. He's a member of the sub-national gov't. US Politics is pretty much like Canada, we have the parliamentary system, the US doesn't. Both work basically the same. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the vast majority of coverage is about his failed gubernatorial run, not about his appointment to a position which doesn't necessarily pass WP:NPOL (there is very little coverage of him in his cabinet position.) So I don't think the position merits the NPOL assumption when it clearly does not receive significant press coverage apart from his appointment. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does not appear to be presumptively notable under WP:NPOL; cabinet level positions are the widely agreed threshold (see detailed discussion here for state-level executive branch NPOL thresholds: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer), however, Commerce does not appear to be part of the current Governor's Cabinet in Indiana. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: and @TulsaPoliticsFan: The terms "secretary of commerce" and "president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp." are interchangeable, as the secretary of commerce leads the Indiana Economic Development Corporation as its president. [32]. You can find different media outlets using both terms, but both refer to the cabinet-level position. AHoosierPolitico (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! I'll strike my keep vote. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @TulsaPoliticsFan in fairness to the GF responses to my contributions, see developments below. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The terms "secretary of commerce" and "president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp." are interchangeable, as the secretary of commerce leads the Indiana Economic Development Corporation as its president. [33]. You can find different media outlets using both terms, but both refer to the cabinet-level position. AHoosierPolitico (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AHoosierPolitico Agreed, the Governor's cabinet includes a seat for a representative from the Indiana Economic Development Corporation. According to the article you've linked, which includes the headline "Lathrop elevated to cabinet", it is Ann Lathrop, Chief Strategy Officer, that took the cabinet position; so the President/CEO of the IEDC does not necessarily appear to automatically take the seat. From that article, there's nothing explicit that indicates Brad Chambers previously held the Cabinet seat. I have no problem accepting an NPOL pass if there's sourcing that explicitly shows Brad Chambers held a cabinet seat. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn Perhaps I should have referenced a different article, as Governor Holcomb's decision to appoint Lathrop to his cabinet, in addition to Rosenberg as secretary of commerce and president of the Indiana Ecomomic Development Corporation, was unique. As the state's new release on the appointment notes, "Lathrop will join Rosenberg on Gov. Holcomb’s cabinet." [34] For sourcing that he held a cabinet-level position, see this article. [35] "Chambers signed a two-year contract with the state when he accepted the cabinet-level position in June 2021." Best, AHoosierPolitico (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the extra sourcing, that's enough for an NPOL pass for me. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with an NPOL pass is that it necessarily assumes there will be GNG coverage, which is almost always true. Problem is there's not - he's basically just covered by his failed gubernatorial run. SportingFlyer T·C 00:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer I disagree. If you search "Brad Chambers" during the timeframe that coincides with his tenure (July 2021 - August 2023), you will find consistent coverage in Indiana media. The article itself talks about some of what earned him coverage: the Regional Economic Acceleration and Development Initiative, the LEAP District, the Indiana Global Economic Summit, record-breaking committed capital investment, first-ever electric vehicle battery facility investments (Samsung SDI/Stellantis and Samsung SD/GM), etc.
Keep (edit conflict) Actually I'd say this is a GNG pass, per NEXIST. Indepth, SIGCOV reliable sources, for example: Brad Chambers' company received 'bailout' from Indy after missing loan repayment deadline (Indy Star, April 25, 2024), Former Indiana Commerce Secretary Brad Chambers joins the crowded Republican race for governor (AP News, August 18, 2023), Chambers loans his gubernatorial campaign another $2 million (NWI Times, March 24, 2024), GOP Ind. governor hopeful donates to both parties (The Indianapolis Star August 29, 2023), Fishers Mayor: Brad Chambers is leader Indiana needs (Indianapolis Star, April 4, 2024). We need to be mindful about misapplying WP:ROUTINE; our job is ~~not to judge editorial content, our job is~~ to assess whether content is indepth and reliabale, not judge editorial decision making. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:50, 30 May 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. Owen× ☎ 11:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Saleh Thattvi

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

Lack of notability. Only 1 source of any kind mentions Muhammad Salih Tatahwi (misspelled throughout wikipedia article). That would be Savage-Smith, Emilie; Belloli, Andrea P. A. (1985). "Islamicate Celestial Globes: Their History, Construction, and Use". Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology (46). Washington, D.C., where he gets barely a few sentences. The other sources cited do not mention him at all. Based on searches on google scholar, that one source is the only secondary source to mention him; all sources on google web search are derived from wikipedia. Also, as is, almost everything on the article is wrong, including the spelling of his name, his place of birth, and the time period he lived in, and what kind of globes he made, and it incorrectly places him in mathematician and astronomer categories. All other details are about other people and historical trends already covered elsewhere on wikipedia. Hi! (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Mathematics, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject here wrote his name in a different alphabet, for which there are multiple correct transliterations. (So, the correct spelling of his name is something like "محمد صالح التاتفي"; at least, that is what Google Translate gave to me.) If kept, we should use the most common transliteration. No strong opinion on notability; this could use the attention of a Persian, Arabic and/or Urdu speaker, as there may be be sources in those languages. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a brief article I think there's just enough material in the reference you indicated, to quote the main part of it:

Besides the Lahore family workshop, there was in the seventheenth century another maker in northwestern India who was producing globes that appear to be cast seamless globes. The instrument maker is known by three astrolabes and two globes (Nos. 25 and 29). On the earlier globe, executed in 1070 H/AD 1659-1660 at the request of a certain Shaykh cAbd al-Khaliq, the maker signed himself as Muhammad Salih Tatah-wi, while on the second globe, made in 1074 H/AD 1663-1664 he signs as Muhammad Salih Tatawi. The spelling of Tatah-wi, which uses quite unusual orthography, is probably an attempt on his part to indicate the pronunciation of the name, for with the second spelling one might be inclined to pronounce it Tatwi. It seems unlikely that he was actually from Tatta in the delta of the Indus river as some have suggested, since the name of the town is written with different characters and should more accurately be transliterated Thattha.

Both globes by Tatawi seem to be quite precise with full sets of constellation figures, though the available photographs of his earlier globe show little detail. Of special interest is the fact that the second globe has the names of the constellations and the signature written in both Arabic and in Sanskrit (see Figure 18, which also clearly shows a plug from the casting process). One might speculate that this maker perhaps worked in the Kashmir area, where at the end of the sixteenth century cAli Kashmiri ibn Luqman may have produced his apparently seamless metal globe. Kashmir was a region where Sanskrit was the language until replaced for official purposes by Persian in the late fifteenth century, and consequently might have been an area where a globe in both Arabic and Sanskrit would have been requested.

... The use of the word c_amal is usual with Diya al-Din of the Lahore workshop as well as later makers such as Muhammad Salih Tatawi of the seventeenth century, ...

There are also some details given on two of his globes (one in the Red Fort Archaeological Museum), and references are indicated to be present in Robert T. Gunther The astrolabes of the world and W. H. Morley Description of a Planispheric Astrolabe Constructed for Shah Sultan Husain Safawi, King of Persia, and Now Preserved in the British Museum; Comprising an Account of the Astrolabe Generally, with Notes Illustrative and Explanatory: to Which Are Added, Concise Notices of Twelve Other Astrolabes, Eastern and European, Hitherto Undescribed. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are sources that mention the figure for it to be notable. However cleanup unsourced and poorly cited information.

SKAG123 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but clean up unsourced and poorly cited information. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 11:45, 30 May 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 Keep views offered no guideline-based arguments. Owen× ☎ 11:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Blevins

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

Fails WP:GNG. While there are a number of sources, I couldn't find anything that is both reliable and provides WP:SIGCOV. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for flagging. Have improved the article with additional authoritative news sources. We are talking here about one of the very best saxophone players of his generation. In the Brit Awards 2024 (the leading awards in UK for music), RAYE won more awards than any other artist, so for Blevins to have a track named after him on her album is notable. He has been regularly in the bands of several household name stars and played in a Grammy award winning album. Wikiwikiwwwest (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still try to include more sources that contribute to the WP:GNG criteria. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per adequate refs by now JarrahTree 01:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? I wasn't able to locate any. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage in the article is now about the Raye group, which isn't helping this person's individual notability... Listed here [36], but it's always in a long list of other people. Playing on an album with a group of others doesn't meet notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the subject of this article lacks in-depth coverage in secondary, reliable sources, so it fails WP:NBIO. I couldn't find any indication it meets WP:MUSICBIO either. The additional references do not solve the problems highlighted by the nomination. Lots of WP:REFSPAM overall. Pilaz (talk) 09:35, 30 May 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 speedy keep‎. Thanks to Cunard! (non-admin closure) Polygnotus (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serene Oasis

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication that subject meets WP:NORG. Very low-quality article and no one seems to be willing to improve it. If it is notable then someone can start fresh after WP:TNT. But the article gives no indication of notability. Already nominated Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Serene_Oasis but no consensus. Polygnotus (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.~~ Polygnotus (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The article has changed a LOT from when I first found it. Retracting AfD. Polygnotus (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~ ~~Delete:~~ Keep: (Article was rewritten to include good sources and have better writing; see Cunard's comment) The one vote for keep by @Philg88 on the previous nomination, and his point that there are good citations, simply that they are chinese, which is completely fine, is valid. I agree that the article is very poorly written, and has some sounding-like-an-ad issues, but this doesn't automatically mean it should be blown up, just that it needs some rewriting. (good) Citations not being in English and poor or non-encyclopedic writing do not exempt an article from passing NORG. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flemmish Nietzsche: So you believe that anyone can dump a very low quality article on the English Wikipedia, and we should never get rid of the trash because in theory it could be improved (despite the fact that no one has even after 3351 days)? You pinged Philg88 but they have not edited in the last 1780 days. That is not logical. Do you understand Chinese? If so, please improve the article. If not, how are you so sure that it passes NORG? You would need more than a quick Google Translate to judge the reliability of a source. Polygnotus (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not. While this article has some bad writing and promotional material, there is plenty of salvageable content — saying an article is badly written alone is not a good argument. If an article has enough good content to the extent that it would be able to remain on its own if the promotional content were removed, the article should not be deleted in its entirety. (if it would not be deleted under G11) And no, I don't understand Chinese, but while Chinese sources may only exist for the company itself, when doing a search for the term there's plenty of English-language sources about the horticulture method itself rather than the company that started the concept, which the article's main topic could certainly shift to. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I don't see plenty of salvageable content. Or any. In an AfD, when saying that there's plenty of English-language sources it would be helpful to actually list them. And perhaps then we can incorporate information from those alleged sources into the article. And get rid of the current content. So do you believe that when someone writes a very low quality article we should not delete it and should be forced to rewrite it instead? What if we don't want to write an article about that topic? What if the article is actually about a non-notable organization and not about a horticulture method? If someone wants to write an article about a horticultural method it would be better to start fresh. Which search engine are you using? I use Google and I can't find evidence of any horticultural method called Serene Oasis. Polygnotus (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see this until now, but no, as I said before, a poorly written article does not deserve to be rewritten to be a good article just because someone created it. I wasn't really saying we have to rewrite the article at all, just remove the content relating to the company rather than the horticulture method. There's a sample of what this might look like on my sandbox, and of the sources mentioning a serene oasis I saw, (originally using Searx but this time using Google) most were just non-reliable blogs, but there are at least two here: [37] [38] Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flemmish Nietzsche: Thank you. I think I understand now; what you describe is not a horticultural method. It is a form of therapy called horticulture therapy. But we already have an article about that. The Chinese characters near the start of the article, 基督教家庭服務中心, translate to "Christian Family Service Center" and not "Serene Oasis". Polygnotus (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not a horticultural method, it says in the lead that it is a method of horticulture therapy. The use of the two sources I provided were really dependent on whether or not the article would stick to the primary topic of the company rather than the horticulture therapy method; the SCMP source would of course be for if it were not rewritten. I wasn't able to find any additional sources on the Hong Kong company itself though, so for sake of not wanting to argue more, I'll say to just blow it all up and someone can start the article over as being about the horticulture therapy method if they wish. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A fabric distributor/art shop and an AirBnB using this name are what I can find in my search. What's used now for sourcing in the article isn't acceptable, sources 4 and 9 are red per Cite Highlighter, so non-RS. Rest isn't helping much either. We could perhaps draft this, but if it's not been worked on in the last decade after being tagged, drafting won't help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep: @Flemmish Nietzsche: May I request for some potential Chinese sources? Philg88 simply mentioned that there were Chinese sources in the previous AFD, but provided none as example. I just did a search in Chinese (I can read Chinese) but nothing came up. I could only find some sources with glancing mentions of the Christian Family Service Centre (including several from unreliable sources like Epoch Times), and none of them have mentioned this Serene Oasis garden thing. Meanwhile, the SCMP source you raised is fine, but the Fine Gardening one doesn't seem like referring to the subject of this article (a therapeutic garden opened by the Christian Family Service Centre in Hong Kong), it is about something else. So at this point of the discussion, I can only see one source with SIGCOV, and it hardly passes GNG. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 08:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Prince of Erebor (talk · contribs) and Flemmish Nietzsche (talk · contribs), I've posted some sources below. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Serene Oasis, which reliable sources have described as a "garden", falls under Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Scope, which says:

For the purpose of this guideline, a geographical feature is any reasonably permanent or historic feature of the Earth, whether natural or artificial.

The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), which says:

Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. Geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question.

Sources

Extended content

Lo, Wei (2013-05-15). "The serene urban garden that helps the vulnerable to grow in confidence". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25.
The article notes: "A "Serene Oasis" of scented herbs and colourful flowers is being opened to the public after proving successful in helping people deal with mental and emotional problems. Operators of the 7,000 sq ft garden next to housing estates in urban Choi Hung say caring for the plants and meeting others with similar problems has proved healing for people with dementia and depression during a two-year trial. ... The garden, named "Serene Oasis", has more than 60 plant species and is designed to create a peaceful feeling. It is surrounded by trees with sounds from a small waterfall and chirping birds. Scents of herbs like rosemary and lemongrass linger in different parts of the garden. Some of the flower beds are elevated for wheelchair users."
Yim, Man-wai 嚴敏慧 (2013-05-15). "7,000呎綠洲　種花醫病憂鬱腦退化患者　92%好轉" [7,000 sq. ft. oasis, planting flowers to heal patients, 92% of patients with depression and dementia improved]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). p. A21.
The article notes: "基督教家庭服務中心在彩虹坪石鄒附近，建立市區最大園藝治療花園「心靈綠洲」。 7,000平方呎的花園設五感體驗區，種有逾百種植物，特設高架花槽方便輪椅人士種花。... 佔地7,000平方呎的花園組合為五感體驗區，例如觸覺係有到手香，其特徵為葉肥厚有絨毛，手指輕輕觸摸會留有香味；而味覺係則主要為食用瓜菜，為迎合本土口味，也特別種植蔥、薑等；視覺則有色彩斑斕的花朵如多色日日春、五星花等；嗅覺系則有九層塔及香茅等；聽覺則為被環境吸引到來的小鳥及昆蟲。"
From Google Translate: "The Christian Family Service Center has established the largest horticultural therapy garden "Spiritual Oasis" in the city near Shek Chow, Choi Hung Ping. The 7,000-square-foot garden has a five-sense experience area with more than 100 species of plants, and specially equipped elevated planters to facilitate people in wheelchairs to plant flowers. ... The garden covering an area of 7,000 square feet is a five-sense experience area. For example, the tactile category includes hand fragrance, which is characterised by thick and fluffy leaves that leave fragrance when lightly touched by fingers; while the gustatory category mainly involves edible vegetables. In order to cater to local tastes, green onions, ginger, etc. are also specially planted; for the visual sense, there are colorful flowers such as multi-colored spring flowers, five-star flowers, etc.; for the olfactory sense, there are nine-story pagodas, lemongrass, etc.; and for the auditory sense, there are small flowers attracted by the environment. Birds and insects."
Lee, Yue-wah 李越樺 (2016-01-02). "親子園藝花園" [Parent-child gardening garden]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). p. C2.
The article notes: "筆者早前有機會參觀基督教家庭服務中心位於彩虹的「都市綠洲」，這塊原本已荒置了十多年的土地，現時以植物作為媒介，推行園藝治療服務，不但綠化環境，更讓平日工作忙碌的家長、... 筆者最欣賞其「心靈綠洲」園區，其體驗區以六感元素為準則，種植過百種植物，如觸感似地毯的波斯草、感覺膠質的海棠、毛毛的到手香……香味的植物如檸檬草、迷迭香、薄荷葉等。一邊觀賞色彩斑斕的植物、流水牆傳來潺潺的流水聲，一家大小更可一邊採摘植物沖水，泡杯檸檬香草茶。"
From Google Translate: "The author had the opportunity to visit the "Serene Oasis" of the Christian Family Service Center in Choi Hung earlier. This land, which had been abandoned for more than ten years, now uses plants as a medium to provide horticultural therapy services, which not only greens the environment, but also makes daily work easier. Busy parents,... The author admires its "Serene Oasis" park the most. Its experience area is based on the six sense elements and has over a hundred kinds of plants planted, such as Persian grass that feels like a carpet, Begonia that feels gelatinous, and fluffy hand-made plants. Fragrant... Fragrant plants such as lemongrass, rosemary, mint leaves, etc. While admiring the colorful plants and the sound of gurgling water coming from the flowing water wall, the whole family can pick plants to drink water and make a cup of lemongrass tea."
"東網透視：園藝治療建綠洲　遠離塵囂煩心事" [Oriental Daily Insight: Horticulture therapy creates an oasis to stay away from the hustle and bustle of the world]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2015-11-21. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25.
The article notes: "基督教家庭服務中心將這原理轉移到治療情緒，在市區開設了一片「心靈綠洲」，通過植物作媒介開展園藝治療，透過種植及觀賞等活動，幫助受困的參加者心靈產生正能量。"
From Google Translate: "The Christian Family Service Center has transferred this principle to the treatment of emotions and opened a "spiritual oasis" in the urban area. It uses plants as a medium to carry out horticultural therapy. Through activities such as planting and viewing, it helps trapped participants generate positive energy in their hearts."
The article notes: "這塊公開予市民參與的園藝治療花園至今已服務近300名參加者。基督教家庭服務中心高級服務總監周淑琼表示，園藝治療在香港是一個較新的概念，這片位處彩虹佔地約6000平方呎的「心靈綠洲」，現正提供園藝治療服務予患有腦退化症的長者、抑鬱症患者及自閉症患者等，治療服務屬輔助性質，以小組進行，每組不超過10名參加者，整個治療分6至8節進行，每節約個半小時。"
From Google Translate: "This horticultural therapeutic garden, which is open to public participation, has served nearly 300 participants so far. Christian Family Service Center Senior Service Director Zhou Shuqiong said that horticultural therapy is a relatively new concept in Hong Kong. This "spiritual oasis" located in Choi Hung covering an area of about 6,000 square feet is now providing horticultural therapy services to people with dementia. For the elderly, patients with depression, patients with autism, etc., the treatment service is of a auxiliary nature and is conducted in groups, with no more than 10 participants in each group. The entire treatment is divided into 6 to 8 sessions, each session is half an hour."
Yuen, Oi-chee 袁藹慈 (2018-03-03). "開花結果　治癒心靈" [Bloom and bear fruit, heal the soul]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). p. D1.
The article notes: "彩虹坪石鄒對面有片逾七萬英尺的地方，基督教家庭服務中心取名為都市綠洲，並將其中約七千英尺劃為心靈綠洲，種有不同植物和花卉，用作園藝治療場地。... 心靈綠洲以外的地方，予大眾參觀，大家又可租地一嘗城市農夫滋味"
From Google Translate: "There is an area of more than 70,000 feet opposite Choi Hung Ping Shek Tsou. The Christian Family Service Center named it Urban Oasis and designated about 7,000 feet of it as a spiritual oasis. It is planted with different plants and flowers and used as a horticultural therapy site. ... Apart from the spiritual oasis, the place is open to the public, and everyone can rent land to have a taste of urban farming."
Wang, Ng-hin 王卓軒 (2014-05-06). "團體出書推廣園藝治療" [Group publishes book to promote horticultural therapy]. Hong Kong Commercial Daily (in Chinese). p. A14.
The article notes: "基督教家庭服務中心於2010年在九龍建立香港市區內最大的園藝治療花園，在過去3年已經為971人提供治療服務，當中有892人是抑鬱症或腦退化症患者，中心將相關經驗編輯成書並於昨日發布，為社工及業界人士提供園藝治療操作指導。... 集結了相關學者的理論，以及過去3年在本港推廣園藝治療經驗的《園藝治療實務工作手冊》於昨日發布。該書作者羅迪 ..."
From Google Translate: "Christian Family Service Center established Hong Kong's largest horticulture therapy garden in Kowloon in 2010. In the past three years, it has provided treatment services to 971 people, 892 of whom were patients with depression or dementia. The center compiled relevant experience A book was written and released yesterday to provide guidance on horticulture therapy for social workers and industry professionals. The "Horticulture Therapy Practical Work Manual", which brings together the theories of relevant scholars and the experience of promoting horticulture therapy in Hong Kong over the past three years, was released yesterday. Luo Di, the author of the book ..."
The article notes: "位於九龍觀塘道2號A的園藝治療花園「心靈綠洲」，是本港首個提供園藝治療訓練及服務場地。園區內設有以視覺、聽覺、觸覺、味覺及嗅覺五種感官元素的體驗區，栽種逾百種各色各樣植物，為有需要人士提供治療服務。"
From Google Translate: "The horticultural therapy garden "Serene Oasis" located at 2A Kwun Tong Road, Kowloon is the first venue in Hong Kong to provide horticultural therapy training and services. The park has an experience area with five sensory elements: sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell. More than 100 kinds of plants are planted to provide therapeutic services to those in need."
"7000呎花園治情緒病" [7,000-square-foot garden cures emotional illness]. Hong Kong Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). 2013-05-15. p. A6.
The article notes: "鳥語花香，的確令人心礦神怡，基督教家庭服務中心在九龍灣開設佔地7,000平方呎的園藝治療花園「心靈綠洲」，輔助治療腦退化症及情緒病病人，透過種植中誘發參與者紓發情緒，並藉此改善情緒控制、提升專注力、加強社交能力。"
From Google Translate: "The singing of birds and the fragrance of flowers are indeed soothing. The Christian Family Service Center has opened a 7,000-square-foot horticultural therapy garden "Serene Oasis" in Kowloon Bay to assist in the treatment of patients with Alzheimer's disease and emotional illness. Through planting, It induces participants to relieve their emotions, thereby improving their emotional control, concentration and social skills."
The article notes: "此外，花園設五感體驗區，以五感設計元素設計，分別種有過百種不同植物，例如有觸碰後手指會有香味的到手香等，帶給病人五官上的刺激，減輕病情引致的認知能力衰退。"
From Google Translate: "In addition, the garden has a five-sense experience area, which is designed with five-sense design elements. There are more than a hundred different plants planted there, such as hand incense that will smell fragrant when touched, which can stimulate the patient's five senses and reduce the cognitive impairment caused by the disease. Intellectual ability declines."
Lau, Sze-nok 劉思諾 (2013-05-15). "城中墾綠洲患者開心扉" [Opening an oasis in the city makes patients happy]. Sky Post [zh] (in Chinese). p. P28.
The article notes: "基督教家庭服務中心2010年起，在觀塘道開設佔地7,000平方呎的園藝治療花園—「心靈綠洲」，過去已為856人提供治療，當中超過九成患憂鬱症及腦退化症。"
From Google Translate: "Since 2010, Christian Family Service Center has opened a 7,000-square-foot horticultural therapeutic garden - "Soul Oasis" on Kwun Tong Road. It has provided treatment to 856 people in the past, more than 90% of whom suffered from depression and dementia."
Yeung, Tak-ming 楊德銘 (2013-05-15). "鬧市建「心靈綠洲」" [Building "Serene Oasis" in a busy city]. Ming Pao Daily News (in Chinese).
The article notes: "基督教家庭服務中心3年前首度在該處引進園藝治療，建立「心靈綠洲」花園。踏進花園，受助的長者會被多達60種色彩繽紛的植物包圍，鳥鳴蟬叫，香氣四溢。受助者可觸摸植物，部分植物如薄荷、香草等更能即場摘食，滿足味覺。共6至8節的園藝治療過程中，輔導人員會透過園林景緻，利用五官感受引導約8名受助者抒發情緒，排解煩憂。"
From Google Translate: "Christian Family Service Center introduced horticultural therapy to the site for the first time three years ago and established the "Serene Oasis" garden. Stepping into the garden, the elderly recipients will be surrounded by as many as 60 kinds of colorful plants, with birds chirping and cicadas chirping, and the fragrance overflowing. Recipients can touch the plants, and some plants such as mint and herbs can be picked and eaten on the spot to satisfy their taste buds. During a total of 6 to 8 sessions of horticultural therapy, counselors will use the garden scenery and five senses to guide about 8 recipients to express their emotions and resolve their worries."
"園藝治療腦退化與憂鬱患者" [Horticulture therapy for patients with brain degeneration and depression]. Sing Pao Daily News (in Chinese). 2013-05-15. p. A13.
The article notes: "有機構把市區一塊荒置土地開闢成一個有意義的社會計畫－「心靈綠洲」(Serene Oasis)，首階段的主要對象為患有腦退化症的長者和憂鬱症患者，"
From Google Translate: "An organization has developed a piece of abandoned land in the urban area into a meaningful social project - "Serene Oasis" (Serene Oasis), the main target of the first phase for the elderly with dementia and patients with depression,"
The article notes: "這項工作由基督教家庭服務中心開拓，「心靈綠洲」位於九龍觀塘道2號A，佔地約7000平方呎，是市區內最大的園藝治療花園，也是首個同時提供園藝治療訓練及服務的場地，園區綠樹環抱、鳥語花香，內設五感體驗區，以五感元素設計，種植了過百種不同的植物。"
From Google Translate: "This work was developed by the Christian Family Service Centre. The "Spiritual Oasis" is located at 2A Kwun Tong Road, Kowloon, covering an area of about 7,000 square feet. It is the largest horticultural therapy garden in the city and the first to provide both horticultural therapy training and services. The venue is surrounded by green trees, with birds singing and flowers fragrant. There is a five-sense experience area, designed with five-sense elements, and more than a hundred different plants planted."
Less significant coverage:
1. "Large urban farm in east Kowloon set to open in March". South China Morning Post. 2014-01-07. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  The article discusses phase 2 of the project, Urban Oasis. The article has a paragraph about phase 1 of the project, Serene Oasis. The article notes: "Phase 1 of the project, “Serene Oasis”, was opened in May 2013. It provides horticultural therapy, which includes communal planting and learning activities for people suffering from dementia and depression. The centre has also reserved a 20,000 square-feet plot for phase 3 of the project."
2. "都市綠洲治癒心靈" [Urban Oasis. Heals the soul]. Hong Kong Inmedia (in Chinese). 2016-06-03. Archived from the original on 2024-05-01. Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  This is another article about phase 2 of the project, Urban Oasis. The article notes: "「都市綠洲」將開拓旁邊的一塊約二萬呎空地，讓更多市民可以成為都市農夫，以及繼續發展「心靈綠洲」園藝治療服務，給予新的服務使用者，例如：殘疾人士及有特殊學習需要學童等。"
  From Google Translate: ""Urban Oasis" will open up a vacant land of about 20,000 square feet next to it, allowing more citizens to become urban farmers, and continue to develop "Spiritual Oasis" horticultural therapy services to provide new service users, such as people with disabilities and people with special learning Need school children etc."

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Serene Oasis (traditional Chinese: 心靈綠洲; simplified Chinese: 心灵绿洲) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Are you willing to turn this into a decent Wikipedia article? Because the current content is so bad that the notability question is moot; it should still be deleted per WP:TNT. No one has bothered trying to improve the article in many years. If you are willing and able to improve it it should be userfied. I have added a collapse template to increase readability. Polygnotus (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get it. The Chinese translation name in the article is wrong, it should be 心靈綠洲. No wonder why I could only find sources in English. Anyway, I took a look at the sources with linked articles Cunard provided, the Oriental Daily News and Hong Kong Inmedia ones are interviews of the Service Centre's staff and look like advertisements. I also think that Polygnotus has made a point, the article was left unattended for about nine years, and the current quality is low. Perhaps we can consider draftifying it? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the Chinese characters near the start of the article, 基督教家庭服務中心, translate to "Christian Family Service Center" and not "Serene Oasis" for some reason. I am not sure if the Christian Family Service Center is notable. Polygnotus (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince of Erebor: I think I found a trick: search google for: site:cfsc.org.hk +"media coverage" Perhaps some of those can be used when working on the draft? Polygnotus (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Draftifying is not a good option because draftspace has lower visibility than mainspace. In draftspace, it likely would be deleted under G13. Abandoned drafts and Articles for creation submissions. This article (and many other Chinese articles) have been in such a poor state because there are not enough English Wikipedia editors with the interest and Chinese-language skills to improve them. Wikipedia:Systemic bias discusses this, noting that As a result of systemic bias, Wikipedia underrepresents the perspectives of people in the Global South, which includes Hong Kong.
Prince of Erebor (talk · contribs), Polygnotus (talk · contribs), Flemmish Nietzsche (talk · contribs), and Oaktree b (talk · contribs), I rewrote the article as it looks to be headed for deletion if I did not rewrite it. It took me 90 minutes to find these sources and three hours to rewrite the article. In total, this is 4.5 hours I spent on this article. This is time that I had been planning to spend on participating in other AfDs and writing a new article on a topic that interests me. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great job. Seems to be a well written and decent article now. Changing my vote back to keep. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is the best result this AfD could have. Excellent work, thank you! Unfortunately I cannot read or write Chinese, otherwise I would've given it a try. How do we retract this thing? Polygnotus (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close it as keep I assume. See WP:Articles for deletion#Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal). Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:38, 26 May 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. There's no support here for draftification. But if you make a request at WP:REFUND they might be willing to restore this article to Draft space. Know that it would need to meet approval by an AFC reviewer, if put directly in main space, it would be subject to CSD G4 speedy deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet

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

Poor attempt of the author to keep Pala Tibetan War from AFD. Same content with different title. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War.Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, China, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet has no issues like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War as you said.
This article is Notable and has been given significant coverage by reliable sources.

Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet, there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Raja Dharma- pala to submit. Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them.^[1]
Devapāla might have come into conflict with Tibet; there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-Srong-Ida-Btsan and his son Mu-teg-Btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharma- pāla to submit. Devapāla also may have clashed with them and defeated them^[2]

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop listing down this big {{tq}} here. It was already a mess at the earlier discussion. Comment down if you've any possible arguments that could potentially save the article. I am pretty sure you haven't read what WP: NOTABILITY, and this reflects everywhere in the AFD. Long paragraphs are not the factor that determines whether it passes GNG or not. And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here. Imperial ^[AFCND] 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This event is notable and has received significant coverage in Reliable Sources (WP:RS) and it passes WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV and this isn't WP:OR since reliable sources mention the event as Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet.
Also what do you mean by "And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here."?? I gave you two reliable sources which mentions the event in a similar way. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Based Kashmiri, what you've done is exposed plagiarism. They mention the event in a similar way because one source plagiarized the other, not because this is a conventional way to write about this. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the WP:DEL-REASON guideline, there is no reason to delete this article and I have provided multiple reliable sources about this event here in the replies below. Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have evidence that one of these sources plagiarised the other? Cortador (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2.
^ Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages.

Delete. This is obviously a recreation of the previously deleted article. It does have a better title, in that it is no longer claiming there was a "Pala Tibetan War", but this is the same issue. We can write about this hypothetical conflict (one of the sources you list above even says "might have"!) on Devapala (Pala dynasty). If eventually we find sources to justify a separate article, we can spin out out from Devapala (Pala dynasty). But we did not find those sources in the last AfD, so I doubt we will find them here either. While I'm looking at that article, I note that we also have the sentences There is nothing impossible as the Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharmapāla to submit. Therefore, Devapāla must have also clashed with and defeated the Tibetan kings. Not only does this not follow the sources (our article says "must have", while neither source says so), it is obviously plagiarism. -- asilvering (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a recreation of the previously deleted article, also this article doesn't have any issues like that article, if you think there is any issue in this article then list them down.
The previous article had issues with the "Dharmapāla's Conflict with Tibetans" section and the "Conflict with Nepal" section, which is excluded from this article. This article focuses on the conflict between Devapala and Tibet, with reliable sources mentioning the event as "Devapala's Conflict with Tibet." The main problem with the previous article was the uncited title, but this article provides reliable sources to support its claim.Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean "it literally contains the exact same words as the previous article". If that were the case, it could just be nominated for speedy deletion. I mean "it is in effect the same article with the same problems", which is true. At least one of the two reliable sources you brought up above appears to be plagiarized, so not only is this not two separate sources with in-depth coverage, it's only one source with very brief coverage. This can easily be written about on Devapala (Pala dynasty) if necessary. (But I'd advise against plagiarising a plagiarised source to do so.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article cannot be deleted for the reasons you've provided, as per the Wikipedia deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON.

Additionally, here are some additional reliable sources about this event:
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources do not support your case. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then explain how? Also you still haven't given any reasons to delete this article from as per the Wikipedia's deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deletion is simple, and it is the most common deletion reason that exists: this does not pass WP:GNG. We need multiple reliable, secondary sources that discuss the topic in depth. -- asilvering (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete per asilvering and Imperial Okmrman (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)~~Blocked sock. Owen× ☎ 05:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They do not have any valid reason to delete the article, Please provide a valid reason from WP:DEL-REASON.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Okmrman And I just checked your User contributions and noticed you have voted for deletion for every single AFD you had discovered EVERY MINUTE, without even reading anything.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both @Asilvering and @ImperialAficionado haven't provided any valid reason to delete this article from WP:DEL-REASON, how can you agree with them? Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:14, 14 May 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, Owen× ☎ 05:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , this is simply not notable and has wrongly been re-created as an article with a different name. If this goes on a topic ban would be in order for the editor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: I think I can improve this article based on the concern raised in this discussion, let me work on this article further. I'd request the closer to please draftify it so I can improve this article. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 04:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough evidence that this needs a standalone article. Even if it does when all history is put together, it's clear the author does not yet have the requisite experience to write that article. It would have to be started from scratch and by a more experienced editor, which can be them in the future, but I think deleting is best for now to put an end to the disruption. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's so much WP:Synthesis present in these creations. IMHO the new creation seems to dovetail somewhat with the old page's sources, events, and personalities. But so far, there's a general consensus among other content-area editors this material has no place in pagespace (yet, if at all). The page creator's "gaming" behavior in recreating the same basic pagespace without violating specific prohibitions, seems by itself a behavioral issue, and several times repeated. BusterD (talk) 16:50, 4 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rik Amrit

AfDs for this article:

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

The article lacks significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The currently cited sources are either passing mentions or unreliable, and a search in Google News did not yield anything useful. GSS ^💬 05:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and India. GSS ^💬 05:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although there are number of sources cited, but these are apparently unreliable, could not established the notability as per WP:NBIO. Pinakpani (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Ahmed Reza Khan (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, I looked for in-depth coverage from multiple independent secondary sources but couldn’t find any. The sources are just passing mentions or unreliable. Therefore, the article fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 12:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:BIO with poor sources. Page fails WP:GNG. Subject is not well known who made any significant achievement worthy of notice to warrant a Wikipedia page on. RangersRus (talk) 12:18, 23 May 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. Discussion about a better title can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 12:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kashmir (1814)

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

The page is littered with unreliable sources and relies heavily on WP:Raj sources to promote ethnic heroism and the events do not indicate a victory for the Afghans. This page requires deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festivalfalcon873 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Afghanistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Three of the sources are WP:RAJ which can be removed as they are only passing by sources attributed by other secondary sources. Not sure what you're referring to as unreliable sources here, would be nice for you to identify, because historians like Hari Ram Gupta are more then WP:RS. Also pages 124-126 clearly show the expedition was a failure and an Afghan victory: [39]. Noorullah (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further adding from the source: "It took Ranjit Singh four years to overcome his defeat and disgrace suffered in the Kashmir expedition of 1814."[40] (page 128) Noorullah (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~:

Only the sources from WP:RAJ mention any defeat occurring and are clearly required for the final result of this article but do not pass the standards of Wikipedia. Historians that you noted such as Hari Ram Gupta are specific on page 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated.” There was no battle against Wazir Fateh Khan mentioned as noted in this article nor any defeat in battle against Wazir Fateh Khan. The article itself is littered with errors as it mentions this is the third campaign or invasion of Ranjit Singh. This is incorrect as there was no campaign in 1812 as noted by Hari Ram Gupta and in 1813 the campaign was a joint collaboration with Wazir Fateh Khan where the former was to give a tribute.

Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The expedition ended in failure, Hari Ram Gupta made this clear on page 126 [41] when he clearly identifies it as a Sikh defeat. The WP:RAJ sources can be removed as I said because they are only passing references while attributed by other secondary sources (such as Hari Ram Gupta). Also the article is being cleaned up, and thus can stay per WP:HEY. Noorullah (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The initial issue of the outcome of this so called battle is not being referenced correctly is still present & or the outcome is using WP:RAJ source which doesn’t meet requirements of Wikipedia. Two WP:RAJsources are still there in the article in order to present a victory which are not reliable. Therefore it is factually incorrect to say it is passing by reference. The expedition ended in failure, but Gupta makes it clear that any battle taking place was just a rumor on pg 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated”in book History Of The Sikhs Vol. V The Sikh Lion of Lahore and does not mention any battle taking place. The author G.S Chhabra you referenced on pg 115 does not mention any direct defeat or battle by Azim Khan either , neither has it been referenced that the losses were heavy. Any mention of any battle taking place in the article is unreliable , Captain Amrinder is not a historian but a politician is thus not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

So to point out that the article has significantly improved is inaccurate as the initial concern is not fixed and no improvements have been done to fix it. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:RAJ sources on the page as per your most recent comment. Gupta clearly states Ranjit Singh was defeated as mentioned above. Noorullah (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: The above vote is the AFD nom himself, so it should be discarded.
Keep: Sources are relatively reliable and the article is decently written. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found nothing in sources for specific "Battle of Kashmir". Only two scattered lines mention the first Kashmir expedition by Ranjit Singh. Clearly not much coverage, it could be merged in any of the parent articles but doesn't need its own standalone page. Based Kashmiri (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. One of those many Indian WP:SYNTH battle pages. RangersRus (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is plenty of coverage on the expedition. [42] [43] [44]

Retitled to "Kashmir expedition (1814) so that it can also stay per WP:HEY. Noorullah (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article has also been significantly expanded to constitute remaining under WP:HEY with numerous other sources also being added. Noorullah (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pinging to @RangersRus and @Based Kashmiri per above. Noorullah (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noorullah21 I'd not oppose moving it to the "Kashmir expedition" or "First Kashmir expedition" as per sources. However the issue of WP:SIGCOV is refraining me from striking my vote. Also the third source [45] doesn't appear to be reliable, as Shashikant Nishant Sharma is not a historian and the publisher is also questionable. The rest of the sources don't have significant coverage. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not move page while AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:35, 22 May 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 Draftified by creator.‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhasha Bicharok Jar

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

Delete, The subject not fulfils WP:BKCRIT Pinakpani (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to nominate this article, as well as the article about its author, Rik Amrit, created by the same user. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources in either English or Bengali, and it appears to be a case of WP:COI. Therefore, Delete. GSS ^💬 05:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and West Bengal. Owen× ☎ 06:10, 22 May 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 speedy keep‎. Per WP:CSK #1, absence of delete rationale. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Cheetah

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

Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 06:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article's sources demonstrate notability, and the nominator has not provided any rationale for deletion. Toughpigs (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No valid deletion rationale. Oblivy (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Comics and animation, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Despite of the nominator not showing any rationale for deletion, I do see some rationales why it is because first; seems to not have a reception section, second; most of the sources are just information and unreliable sources which have nothing to do with the WP:SIGCOV however, there is some reliable and reasonable sources like 7, 11, and 16. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 13:20, 22 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Stew

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

The subject of the article doesn't appear to be notable. The article cites two sources, the first being Everything2 (a user-generated website, thus not reliable), and the second being an article on adobe.com. Other than that, I found a short Entertainment Weekly article from 1999, a Boston Globe article (also 1999), and a Boston Phoenix article (2009) with around 30 words about Computer Stew. Perhaps it could be merged to another John Hargrave project, Zug (website) (although I don't know if Zug itself is notable, but it did exist for significantly longer) or ZDNET. toweli (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. toweli (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria, which says:
Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:
- The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores.
Sources
1. "New This Week". Entertainment Weekly. 1999-10-15. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
  This is a 142-word review. I consider it to be significant coverage. The review notes: "So it’s a delight to discover this regurgitatively innovative daily show, in which John Hargrave (an editor at computer-trade site ZDNet) and Jay Stevens (contributing solely via speakerphone) present a feast of gag-inducing gags. ... Despite some audio glitches and a bulky download, Stew shows that a lot of fun can be had with a little technology — and a strong stomach."
2. Hartigan, Patti (1999-10-01). "Geeks go for guffaws: "Computer Stew" puts high-tech, lowbrow humor on the Net". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
  This is a 784-word review. I consider it to be significant coverage. The review notes: "The show comes in byte-size servings of about three minutes per segment. Short videos are appearing on the Internet, as entrepreneurs and Hollywood types are falling over one another trying to discover what kind of entertainment content is going to make a killing on line. And like it or not, there's nothing else quite like "Computer Stew" out there."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Computer Stew to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Just barely notable with the sources given above and what's used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if sources are included; per the source in the article and the sources found by the nominator. That looks fine to me. jp×g 🗯️ 07:24, 28 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption Paws

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

Dated information and allegations not helpful to take any view on adoption of dogs from the charity 1nicknamesb (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Procedural Close, as no deletion argument has been presented. The article certainly needs to be rewritten to remove POV issues, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the references in the article already present the subject's notability. Silver seren^C 01:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is requested based on dated news articles, no more relevant. 1nicknamesb (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being sourced to older articles is not a basis for deletion alone, but only [46] appears to be significant coverage of the organization itself so I don't think it passes WP:NORG. The sources seem to be news (WP:NOTNEWS) about an injured dog and imported pets or routine coverage of a small local organization. Reywas92^Talk 17:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's significant coverage of the group covering years that I found in multiple different publications, Reywas92.

These sources cover the history of the group, how it formed, and its activities over the years, both good and bad. Silver seren^C 20:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Silverseren's evidence, most of his sources are inaccessible but I am assuming good faith (ping me if it turns out these sources don't establish notability). Article is in a poor state but can be fixed and I've already removed nonsense like the Google Reviews from the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also likely external influence on the article (and possibly this AfD) due to some controversial claims in the article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Simone (2nd nomination) Traumnovelle (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A flawed nomination is not a reason for a procedural close once a valid Delete !vote has been voiced. Please address the sourcing to determine if this meets our guidelines. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:06, 30 May 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamad Sharip Othman

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

I could not find out if this person passes WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, not to mention the page contains some pretty shady and unsourced information. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 14:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Malaysia. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 14:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep

good article for others to read minus all of the red lining

just needs the red lining fixed and it will look good thanks Briannemartindale (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did not find any other WP:RS besides the one on the article, failing both WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:25, 22 May 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 soft delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tural Yusifov

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It is questionable the DJ is an encyclopedic person. Not enough for an encyclopedia.--Correspondentman (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:SNG for journalism related professionals, and WP:ANYBIO—the awards are not notable nor neither are they major awards per the criteria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:35, 27 May 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 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!} 01:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Kapumealani Ng

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 09:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Hawaii. Hitro talk 09:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Brief coverage with only four hits in Gnews, but nothing extensive that would help meet notability. Sourcing in the article isn't useful, 3 and 4 are red per Cite Highlighter, with 5 being marginal. On the whole, we don't have notability for this artist. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 22 May 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 Arab Canadians. There is consensus that the information should be preserved, but not as a standalone Star Mississippi 13:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Canadian identity

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

Follow-up to the deletion of:

All written by the same user that have also been deleted for the same reasons, this similarly written article has the same problems. WP:SYNTH + WP:REFBOMBED issues where the article just references random articles with the phrase "Arab Canadian" or "Arab-Canadian (identity)" in it. NLeeuw (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NLeeuw (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More than enough study of this cultural identity [47], [48] and multiple papers such as [49], [50]. This is also a book review on the subject [51]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arab Canadians, which doesn't have a lot of prose; this content could improve the parent article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Arab Canadians per above. Aldij (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are many sources on this identity. The article should be expanded, not deleted. Brat Forelli🦊 01:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arab Canadians, which covers the same topic. Ethnic group articles X do not typically have a separate article for "X identity". _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:12, 30 May 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. Rough consensus is split between Keep and Merge, with little support for an outright deletion. Discussion about a potential merge can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 12:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mala Tokmachka

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

Yet another Russian invasion of Ukraine content fork. This one is quite particular in the sense that it is made up. There was no fighting in Mala Tokmachka during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Ukraine launched this operation to liberate areas south of the line of contact and reach the Azov Sea. Mala Tokmachka was north of the line of contact.

What this article does is group a series of engagements that took place in one of the four fronts of the counteroffensive (the one towards Vasylivka, the Robotyne one in this case, the one towards Berdiansk and the Bakhmut one) under one supposed title. This article is original research. No sources talk of a "Battle of Mala Tokmachka". Splitting content from 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive is also not justified. The aforementioned Robotyne front in which these engagements took place was in fact the one that saw the heaviest fighting during the counteroffensive, specially during the latest stages. Super Ψ Dro 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mala Tokmachka is one of many towns that saw heavy fighting although not enough to deserve it's own article. Jebiguess (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but please let me explain why rather than just a short comment

1. Multiple sources talk about a battle around Mala Tokmachka as well as armor and personnel losses from the engagement.

2. This battle was the reason as to why Ukrainian commanders switched tactics during the counteroffensive.

3. Like I said earlier, articles should only be deleted if they have no notability whatsoever. For example, if only a few sources mention the article's topic.

4. Multiple offensives throughout history and that have articles on wikipedia have battles that took place in them.

5. Content is NOT being split from the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article. The purpose of this article is to specifically go over what happened at Mala Tokmachka and how the result of this battle led to Ukrainian commanders changing their tactics. Ukrainian Wikipedia has already done this for other battles during the counteroffensive. Salfanto (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Battle is notable for the employment of Western supllied weaponry like M2 Bradley and Leopards 2A6s. Also Rabotyno should have an article. That town was the centre of all the Ucrainian advance during the 2023 Summer offensive.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion or merge to 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. There is no named "Battle of Mala Tokmachka" in reliable sources, and it is not the place of Wikipedia to invent battles where reliable sources have not previously defined them. None of the sources refer to these events collectively, so it is disingenous to portray this series of assaults and clashes as a battle lasting from 7-30 June. Only the early assaults seem notable in any way, but not notable enough for a standalone article at this point. There may be some valuable analysis in the aftermath section here - a place can be found for it somewhere on the counteroffensive page. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How could this article become more notable? Any help is much appreciated Salfanto (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not notable in and of themselves; articles cover notable people or notable events. I don't know how you would demonstrate that there was a notable event called the Battle of Mala Tokmachka. For example, you have recently added content about Mykola Melnyk, whom you refer to as a veteran of this battle. But I can't find Mala Tokmachka mentioned once in either the Censor.Net article or the David Axe article. Perhaps this battle is more widely reported on under a different name? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian called it "Mala Tokmachka assault" in this article

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/14/ukraine-failed-assault-near-mala-tokmachka-raises-counteroffensive-challenges Salfanto (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a review of the sources: assault (or attack, etc.) seems to be a more frequent word than battle in the sources. And events past 9 June would not appear to be part of the same event. So the question seems to come down to whether or not this series of assaults between 7-9 June, where much of the Western armor was lost, warrants its own article, or if it would be more appropriate as a part of the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large employment and large loss for the first time of Western-provided equipment was notable and heavily reported on at the time. EkoGraf (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was it heavily reported as a military engagement that took place within a determined area and timespan? Can you provide sources suggesting this? Super Ψ Dro 15:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is properly described, there are sources, it just needs to be expanded and developed. The article is needed and there should be more of them, because there were many battles during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, and they do not have any articles, but are only briefly and insufficiently described without division into battles. Unlike the counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson, which have such articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bortak42 (talk • contribs)

I don't really see a necessity of splitting the article into separate battles. And the Kherson counteroffensive does not have any battle articles in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 15:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is battle of Davydiv Brid only in Kherson counteroffensive but there is. 79.186.59.115 (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And for the 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive there are the Battle of Kupiansk and the Second battle of Lyman Salfanto (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the events in Davydiv Brid took place in May-June 2022 while the Ukrainian operations in Kherson are usually understood to have begun in August, so this may be something of a mischaracterization. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address notability based on sources, as defined by our guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Russian invasion of Ukraine, sources are poorly cited and lack notability. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 08:41, 24 May 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Masters series 4

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

Redirect to Interior Design Masters. Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Mostly original research. Dan arndt (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Dan arndt (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:15, 25 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kazi Shameem Farhad

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

Fails WP:GNG and possibly involve a COI. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Agree with the nominator. -AlbeitPK (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete No source is identified for any of the biographical information. The only sources cited are things he wrote, cited to prove that he wrote them, mostly newspaper columns and editorials. No source could be found containing more than a passing mention about him. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The person is nowhere to be found although the references in the article are also rubbish sources. Ontor22 (talk) 11:52, 28 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabiha Mehzabin Oishee

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

There are no claims to notability, and nothing in the sources suggests subject passes WP:GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Fails WP:GNG. Can be a speedy deletion. -AlbeitPK (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are not appropriate-profiles and self-published sources. Did not established notability at all. Ontor22 (talk) 11:55, 28 May 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Masters series 3

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Mostly original research. Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:14, 25 May 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput Mughal marriage alliances

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:OR written to promote a POV. The topic itself is not notable that it would need a separate article.Ratnahastin (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here for the record that I am in agreement with the proposed draftification. The article may not require deletion anymore. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It isn't well written and could use a more analytic overview, but the large number of sources is more than enough to establish notability. Marriages were an important aspect of diplomacy in many countries, as shown in Royal intermarriage. Zero^talk 09:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing a GA article with a poorly written article that mainly relies on outdated unreliable sources and fails to establish notability. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Poorly written" is totally irrelevant at AFD. Also only a fraction of the sources are primary and more than half do not date from the RAJ. The fact that you link "unreliable" to PRIMARY suggests that you don't understand either. This article needs a good clean-up, that's all, as the topic is obviously significant. Zero^talk 12:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This is a good article based on NPOV. I don't think so this article should be deleted because it has more than 53 reliable sources produced by various independent writers. It would be a significant loss if this article were deleted since it may require copyediting but not deletion, practically all sources are reputable, and the article fits the general notability criterion. The Mughal Rajput marital partnerships were a significant occurrence in Indian history during the 16th and 17th century so it should remain on free encyclopedia.2404:3100:188E:2F21:1:0:94AA:65C8 (talk)— 2404:3100:188E:2F21:1:0:94AA:65C8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete WP:SYNTH at best. I don't see any need for having an article on this subject. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess. There was no such thing as "Rajput-Mughal marriage alliances" in the cited sources. Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not denying that these marriages didn't happen, but the topic is not notable. Lorstaking (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Mughal Empire. Some reliable sources on the page from John F. Richards (historian), Ruby Lal (historian), Bonnie G. Smith (historian), Jayashree Vivekanandan (senior research associate), Barbara Ramusack, Satish Chandra (historian), David O. Morgan (historian), Anthony Reid (historian) and few others help with verification of the content on the page. Passes WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I mainly see it as a fork of various articles. I don't believe a merge would be needed. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly pass WP:GNG Most sources are reliable and meet the criteria of notability, as most of the references are written by notable individual authors, viz., Jayashree Vivekanandan (senior research associate), Barbara Ramusack, Satish Chandra (historian), David O. Morgan (historian), and some others.Feniles (talk)— Feniles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Page seems to be illogical and a mixture of Tales. There isn't any particular record of such marriages Rudra Simha (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic mainly in western india (as the most classical example of Mariam uz Zamani and Akbar marriage belong to Rajasthan), cleanup of this article is required for better overview and number of reliable sources is also enough. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is as trivial as it gets and Wikipedia appears to be the only source right now that happened to make a topic out of it. There are no WP:HISTRS sources that have provided coverage to this topic. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see any validity of the topic or existence of an actual "marriage alliance". Article just lists some marriages that are speculated to have been between a Rajput and a Mughal. That is rather trivial. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, strongly. Am I seeing double? There is a preponderance of reliable sources on that article, some even discuss the dynamics of these marriages overall. Few of them are old primary sources, most of the sources that establish notability are from the 90s and later. I have not gone source-by-source (will do in a while) but is difficult to believe that the multiple Rajput marriages of Akbar and Jahangir alone would not generate sufficient scholarship for notability, let alone all the marriages of Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, minor princes and nobles. Those bringing up OR, SYNTH, and RAJ don't mention a single specific example where the article fails these policies when it has inline citations for almost every sentence as well as overarching citations that unify them into a si gle topic. @Ratnahastin: what is the POV supposedly being pushed here? What am I missing? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 12:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said the article has been created for pushing a POV because it relies on primary sources like Akbarnama, Jahangirnama for info and none of the references are exactly showing how this is a notable topic. Then there are some examples who have been hijacked by caste Rajput writers despite there is no evidence if they were Rajput. These things are better for discussing on the articles of the particular individuals instead of creating a list to impose a contradictory point of view.Ratnahastin (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not difficult to find sources even for the very trivial subjects but the major problem here is if WP:GNG was satisfied. I don't see if it has been. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1226273371 by 2409:4085:9197:EABD:0:0:1C8:8B1 I had to revert your comment here. You need to write a comment without making WP:NPA. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear. Caste-pushing are we? I see this too often. I can't remember, but I saw an editor like this recently who did the exact thing. — thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: One part of me wants it deleted, but one it kept. — thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting seems unlikely to achieve consensus, but with this much discussion, let's give it a try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not my favourite kind of page, but I think it is undeniable that the phenomena is covered in scholarly literature, so the only WP:SYNTH argument is that the facts of individual relationships have been marshalled into a list. If that's SYNTH then all lists on en.wiki are at risk. JMWt (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic does not require a page of its own. WP:NOT specifically WP:DIRECTORY disagree with the page. (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (already voted keep above). I strongly object to the claim that this topic is not notable. Back when kings and princes ruled the world, arranged marriages were one of the most important ways that alliances were cemented and empires waxed and waned. This was true in Europe also. The political map of the world would be different today otherwise. So in fact this phenomenon is a key part of history. Zero^talk 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you mention which sources convinced you that the topic is notable?Ratnahastin (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seek and ye shall find. The Politics of Marriage in Medieval India is a book about it published by Oxford University Press, but surprisingly not cited. Zero^talk 15:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me where this book is focusing on this subject? The summary of this book that I have found tells it is rather talking about Rajput#Culture and ethos.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is scattered throughout the book. Note the emphasis on political marriage and marriage alliance — this was not just a matter of some people marrying each other. For example, on p80-81 we have "Political marriages soon came to play a significant role in the establishment of the Mughal rule. Akbar wanted to use political marriage alliances as an important means for building and consolidating local support. In fact, Akbar’s conception of the Rajput role in his expanding empire was responsible for a number of matrimonial alliances with the Rajputs, and he made at least 40 political marriages for himself, his three sons, and his eldest grandson. Ultimately the emperor made marriage alliances for himself and sons with almost all major Rajput chiefs." And on page 80, "the first Rajputs to make marriage alliances with the Mughal dynasty were seeking support for their efforts to gain or retain land. Raja Bharmal Kachwaha, involved in a long and bitter contest with a brother for the control of Amber and Mertiya Rathore, Jagmal Viramdevot, was similarly struggling with his brother Jagmal for Merta, both married their daughters to the young emperor in 1562–3 respectively." And the drama surrounding marriage alliances is exemplified by a quotation on page 79: "The Mugals demanded the hand of princess of Roopnagar, a junior branch of the Marwar house. But she rejected the proposal offering herself to Rana Raj Singh in return for her protection. The priest deemed it as an honour at being the messenger of her wishes. The Rana then appeared before Roopnager and took her away to his capital. This led to a war between Mewar and the Mughals." On page 84, "Marriage alliances were also entered into as a face saving device in order to bring an end to prolonged hostilities over land." On page 141, "When the Rathores of Marwar rose to prominence in the mid-fifteenth century, marriage alliances with them were keenly sought after." That's all taken from random pages and is more than enough to demonstrate not only the relevance of this book but also the notability of the topic. Zero^talk 14:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be discussing a broader topic, which is not just "Rajput Mughal" marriage alliance but more than that. Will you support moving the title to something like Political marriages in India? That would certainly clear up things and allow meaningful expansion and removal of WP:SYNTH from the present version.Ratnahastin (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have preferences as to how the topic is divided into articles. It can be discussed on the relevant article talk pages. Meanwhile it would be counterproductive to delete the part of the story that this article tells. Zero^talk 01:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This book also appears citable and contains a fair amount of relevant information. In particular it could help to move the article away from being a boring list. Zero^talk 06:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per above discussion. First move the page to draft space, then remove the content that isn't supported by the source with regards to politically motivated marriage, and then change the title to Political marriages in India. After that, we need to include other examples such as political marriage of Chandragupta Maurya and move the page into article space. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : This article is created by main contributor, User:Adhinayaka, appears to use multiple accounts to push a caste-biased narrative favoring Ahiras/Yadavas on Hindi Wikipedia. This politically motivated article compromises the article's neutrality and reliability. For this reasons, the article should be deleted.च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Message 19:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NXcrypto, if you have evidence, please file a case at WP:SPI. But AFDs are not an appropriate place to cast aspersions and make undocumented accusations against another editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That editor must be talking about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HinduKshatrana. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above proposal to draftify as laid out by ArvindPalaskar seems good. I am not opposed to it. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Simply searching "Rajput" and "marriage" in the sources cited, like so [52] [53] [54] (page 19), produces strong evidence that this subject is covered in reliable, scholarly sources, was very significant to world history, and is not some made-up POV-pushing SYNTH. In addition, the delete !votes have been particularly weak, consisting of inaccurate vague waves at policy, very poorly-reasoned arguments that do not take into account any of the evidence provided, and several accusations of policy violations which have not yet been substantiated. Toadspike [Talk] 09:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions of the individual examples are not enough to establish WP:GNG with regards to this subject. Can you tell what do you think about the proposed draftification? Ratnahastin (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I almost closed this discussion, but decided to weigh in with a comment instead. My reading is that the topic is covered pretty substantially in reliable sources and it seems like an appropriate topic for inclusion in Wikipedia. I am not seeing this as pushing a POV (being unfamiliar with the politics, so I may be naive), nor do I see this as being original research. In any case, the POV issues if there are any could be addressed via editing. I don't see much need to draftify the article; if there is interest in improving the article's tone or POV, I think that can be done without moving to the draft space. Malinaccier (talk) 14:57, 7 June 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. Please add the sources you found in your participation in this discussion into the article so there is not a return trip to AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Syafi'i

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article (blogspot) and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 04:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GNG is met. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (WP:NPOSSIBLE). Clicking on the Find sources: news and books links above shows that sustained coverage of Abdullah Syafi'i exists across many independent reliable sources. I have checked some of the non-English news sources using Google translate. Collectively they add up to significant coverage. The sustained coverage is also an indicator of notability (WP:SUSTAINED).-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that on 17 May 2024 WC gudang inspirasi redrafted the article using better sources.^[55]-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is notable even though most sources are not in English. Some sources I could find online were Tribunnews here states about how the subject was shot and martyred with his wife. Another here and so on here. This gives a preview that subject passes GNG. -Tumbuka Arch (talk) 09:38, 29 May 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. Malinaccier (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium (film series)

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

The article is unsourced. I don't see why this topic deserves an article as there are no sources on the Imperium series, only sources on the individual movies. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, and Romania. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this sorted in the Romania-related discussions? Some of the production companies involved are Spanish/German/French but I see no participation of Romanian actors or producers. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the nom's implicit question is that Wikipedia:Notability, right at the top, says that we can merge up articles into a bigger subject. See also Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?, which has almost 150 comments on a closely related subject. See statements like "Where a source contains coverage of one of the books in a series of books, this coverage is deemed to be coverage of the series of books, in addition to being coverage of that book" and "Articles on book series may be created in some cases where there are no series-level sources, drawing on the sourcing of the individual books." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, what outcome are you arguing for? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not wrong I'm pretty sure he's saying that keep is the answer, even though what he's talking about is the Notability for books. MK at your service. 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing indicates in her preferences that she would like to be referred to as she. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but if you don't have WP:NAVPOPS installed, it's not usually convenient to look up those settings. Innocent mistakes never bother me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, I'm not sure whether it should be kept and converted to an article (e.g., adding paragraphs and sources), kept as a WP:SETINDEX, or converted to a WP:DAB page. But I don't think overall that we solve any problems by deleting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, last hope for some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although the series is a loose one, the miniseries that are part of the set are all RAI productions and seem to be part of the same project indeed. I favour a keep, as the page helps navigation as a disambiguation page does. I would rename it but not sure how, because most of the "films" were broadcast as miniseries... Imperium (miniseries series) would be a terrible name! Imperium (TV productions)? Sources would not hurt either. Would redirect and merge to/into Imperium (disambiguation) be a suitable WP:ATD?? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Italy, and United Kingdom. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, France, Germany, and Spain. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list of related topics that all have articles, therefore useful for navigation. Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful navigation list, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vets (company)

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

Article about a company that does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to news about product launches and market openings that are excluded from consideration as trivial under NCORP. Cannot find multiple examples of significant, secondary, independent coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Companies, Medicine, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 22 May 2024 (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. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:32, 28 May 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 00:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Badal Sesher Pakhi

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

Fails GNG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 02:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage found other than the announcement of the series. ABP Bengali provides some coverage, as does Etvbharat, but I'm not sure about Etv’s reliability. Both of them are just announcements of the series; no other coverage found. Grabup (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage available. See for example Hindustan Times. ABP and ETV are pretty major outlets as well, for what it's worth. --Soman (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindustan Times article only talks about marriage and doesn't provide any information regarding the series at all. Additionally, when you said "ABP and ETV are pretty major outlets as well," you should know that Republic World is also a major outlet, but it is considered unreliable. Similarly, there is no consensus that ETV and ABP are reliable sources at WP:ICTFSOURCES, but I personally think that ABP should be considered reliable but I question ETV's reliability. GrabUp - Talk 11:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Sun_Bangla#Currently_broadcast. Per nom fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. The series is an individual television program and is far less notable as it likely airs in only one local media market and not to a broader regional or national audience. Sources are poor with not enough coverage. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:16, 25 May 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. I see a consensus that the newly located sources satisfy notability standards for schools. A possible rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Chinese Christian Union Logos Academy

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 02:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
1. Lin, Zhong 林钟; Deng, Shaobing 邓少冰 (2014). "走进香港真道书院小学" [Visit Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy]. 七彩语文（习作） [Colourful Language (Exercises)] (in Chinese). No. 10. East China Normal University. ISSN 1673-4998. Retrieved 2024-05-15 – via CQVIP [zh].
  Colourful Language (Exercises) is a magazine published by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University. According to this description from Google Translate, "Colourful Language (Exercises) was officially launched in January 2015, with academic guidance provided by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University. The magazine is closely linked to the reform of basic education curriculum and strives to provide suitable resources and platforms for middle school Chinese teachers to meet the needs of teachers for daily teaching and improvement of professional qualities."
  The abstract notes: "本期的＂大眼睛看世界＂,小编将和大家一起走进香港一所名校——香港华人基督教联会真道书院。真道书院位于香港调景岭湾畔,学校分小学和中学部,与其他学校不同,真道书院学生没有统一的校服。小学部学生在中文课上使用的是内地出版的小学语文课本,他们觉得教材文字优美,内容包含了古今中外的文化特色,和浓厚的道德教育元素，很符合小学语文教育的需要。"
  From Google Translate: "In this issue of "Seeing the World with Big Eyes", the editor will go with you to a famous school in Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Union Logos Academy is located on the shores of Tiu Keng Ling Bay in Hong Kong. The school is divided into primary and secondary schools. Unlike other schools, students at Union Logos Academy do not have uniforms. Students in the primary school use primary school Chinese textbooks published in the Mainland in their Chinese classes. They feel that the textbooks are beautifully written, contain cultural characteristics of ancient and modern times, Chinese and foreign cultures, and have strong moral education elements, which are in line with the needs of primary school Chinese education. ... In the first two years of elementary school, Union Logos Academy expects students to lay a solid foundation of knowledge and learn self-care, self-study and self-reflection skills. The school focuses on constructing a school-based curriculum and uses some Chinese and art textbooks from the Mainland."
2. Lok, Irene (2015-05-11). "將軍澳一條龍直資香港華人基督教聯會真道書院中小學" [Tseung Kwan O One-stop Direct Subsidy Scheme. Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Primary and Secondary Schools]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-05-24. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  Lok, Irene (2015-05-11). "將軍澳一條龍直資香港華人基督教聯會真道書院中小學" [Tseung Kwan O One-stop Direct Subsidy Scheme. Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Primary and Secondary Schools]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "2002年創校的真道年資較其他直資學校淺，被定為新派直資學校，卻是全港唯一採用「十一年一貫」課程模式的學校，分兩年基礎階段、五年拓展階段及四年通達階段，以十一年完成小學及中學課程。 ... 在小學首兩年基礎階段，真道期望學生打穩知識基礎，學好自理、自學及自省能力。學校着力建構校本課程，採用部分內地中文及美術科教材"
  From Google Translate: "Founded in 2002, Union Logos Academy has a younger school years than other DSS schools and is designated as a new DSS school. However, it is the only school in Hong Kong that adopts the "11-year consistent" curriculum model, which is divided into two years of basic stage and five years of expansion stage. and the four-year mastery stage, which takes eleven years to complete the primary and secondary school courses. ... In the first two years of elementary school, Union Logos Academy expects students to lay a solid foundation of knowledge and learn self-care, self-study and self-reflection skills. The school focuses on constructing school-based curriculum and adopts some mainland Chinese and art textbooks."
3. A, Yin 阿言 (2024-02-01). "專訪｜香港華人基督教聯會真道書院多元體驗式學習培育未來領袖" [Exclusive Interview｜Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy's diversified experiential learning cultivates future leaders] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "學校著重學生全方位發展，學生從小學便培育體、美特質，提供多項興趣班予學生選擇，如跳繩、跆拳道、琵琶及烏克麗麗等。另外，為培養學生閱讀習慣，自小學階段設有閱讀時間，同學在操場集合一同閱讀，從小學階段養成自己探索知識的習慣。中學則設有 DEAR Time（Drop Everything And Read），讓學生暫時放下功課及其他事務，專心閱讀。學校更會舉辦不同活動，如閱讀馬拉松、圖書日、書展等讓同學接觸不同類型的書籍，鼓勵學生閱讀。"
  From Google Translate: "The school focuses on the all-round development of students. Students develop physical and aesthetic qualities from elementary school, and provides students with a variety of interest classes to choose from, such as rope skipping, taekwondo, pipa and ukulele. In addition, in order to cultivate students' reading habits, reading time is set up from the primary school level. Students gather in the playground to read together, and develop the habit of exploring knowledge by themselves from the primary school level. Middle schools have DEAR Time (Drop Everything And Read), which allows students to temporarily put aside their homework and other matters and concentrate on reading. The school also organizes different activities, such as reading marathons, book days, book fairs, etc., to expose students to different types of books and encourage students to read."
4. Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2021-06-02). "【直資中學】一條龍11年完成小學中學課程　真道書院雙軌制曾出產IB狀元" [[Direct Subsidy Scheme Secondary School] One-stop primary school and middle school courses completed in 11 years. Union Logos Academy’s dual-track system has produced IB top scorers]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "位於將軍澳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院屬中小學直資一條龍學校，也是全港唯一以11年完成小學及中學課程的學校。真道書院既提供中學文憑試課程（DSE），同時開辦國際文憑課程（IB），學生在公開試成績優異，過去亦曾誕生IB狀元。"
  From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O is a one-stop school under direct subsidy for primary and secondary schools. It is also the only school in Hong Kong that completes primary and secondary school courses in 11 years. Union Logos Academy not only provides the Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (DSE) course, but also offers the International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB) course. Students have achieved excellent results in public examinations, and IB top scorers have also been born in the past."
5. Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2023-10-10). "直私面試丨直資真道書院2023年小一面試題目老師話+傳豆袋考小朋友反應" [Direct Private Interview丨Direct Subscription Union Logos Academy Primary One Interview Questions 2023 Teacher’s Words + Bean Bag Test Children's Responses]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-24. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2023-10-10). "直私面試丨直資真道書院2023年小一面試題目老師話+傳豆袋考小朋友反應" [Direct Private Interview丨Direct Subscription Union Logos Academy Primary One Interview Questions 2023 Teacher’s Words + Bean Bag Test Children's Responses]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "位於將軍澳區直資學校的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，即提供本地文憑試（DSE）課程，同時開辦國際文憑（IB）課程，多年來深受家長歡迎。真道書院小一面試有兩輪，第一輪是小朋友自行面試，若成功通過會進入第二輪面試，家長也會獲邀出席，TOPick邀請了為女兒報考7間直私小學的港媽梁太，拆解真道書院小一面試第一階段考核的内容。"
  From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, located in the direct subsidy school in Tseung Kwan O District, provides local Diploma Examination (DSE) courses and also offers International Baccalaureate (IB) courses. It has been popular among parents for many years. There are two rounds of primary one interviews at Union Logos Academy. The first round is for children to interview on their own. If they successfully pass, they will enter the second round of interviews. Parents will also be invited to attend. TOPick invited Mrs. Leung, a mother from Hong Kong who applied for her daughter to seven direct private primary schools to dismante the contents of the first stage of the primary school interview at Union Logos Academy."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy (traditional Chinese: 香港華人基督教聯會真道書院; simplified Chinese: 香港华人基督教联会真道书院)) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be renamed to Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy (add the word "Churches" after "Christian" and before "Union") to match the name on the website. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, promo, interviews, all obviously based on the same info/source, nothing above show WP:SIRS or notability, they just show marketing at work. Nothing wrong with promotion, but it doesn't equal notability. // Timothy :: talk 12:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find any evidence of the sources being "based on the same info/source" since they discuss different aspects of the school. WP:SIRS is part of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, a non-profit educational institution like Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy needs to meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which this school does. Cunard (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These sources aren't doing what they're purported to be. Source 1 appears to be the equivalent of a WP:TRADES publication. Sources 2, 4 and 5 are brief listings of multiple school options, no significant coverage. (Moreover, 4 and 5 are on the Hong Kong Economic Times' "TOPick" subsite, which appears to be a advertorial Daily Mail-style infotainment site, not a reliable source.) Source 3 is described as an "interview," which is a primary source and thus not eligible to validate notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first source, a magazine published by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University, is not equivalent to a WP:TRADES publication. It is an academic magazine, not a trade magazine. For the second source, I linked to the wrong article because when scrolling to the bottom of the article, the website changes the URL to the next article. I've fixed the link. The incorrect link did not mention the school. The updated link is a full article about the school.
The third source contains sufficient non-interview content to amount to significant coverage. The fourth source discusses other schools but provides significant coverage of this school. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
For the fifth source, I linked to the wrong article for the same reason discussed above. I've fixed the link. The fifth article is about the school's interview process and is significant coverage.
I consider TOPick to be a reliable source. According to this information from a Telum panel discussion with the Hong Kong Economic Times Group about TOPick:
Editorial team
Around 30 journalists and editors, each contributing five stories daily.
An independent editorial and video team oversees each sector.
Editorial focus
80 per cent on parenting and health, 20 per cent on entertainment, celebrity and lifestyle.
Parenting: general parenting news and education information through a section called 「Band 1 學堂」, which features information on kindergarten, primary and secondary school, elite education and overseas study.
The publication has journalists, editors, and an independent editorial team. It is not an "advertorial" site. It aims to inform its readers about parenting and education topics. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See my comments on the sources above; I do not believe they are sufficiently reliable nor offer enough significant coverage to meet GNG or NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All five sources provide significant coverage. For two of the sources, I linked to the wrong pages owing to how the website changes the URL to the next article when scrolling to the bottom of the current article. I've fixed the links. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I reviewed the new links and stand by my assessment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dclemens1971 assessment. I don't believe the additional sources found help with notability. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am surprised that reliable sources from a Chinese academic journal and Hong Kong newspapers are considered insufficient to establish notability. Sources likely these previously have been sufficient to establish notability for schools, which must meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and not Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which "establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article".
An alternative to deletion is to merge to Tiu Keng Leng#Education, where this school is located. School articles should be merged, not deleted, when there is a suitable alternative to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So are you now !voting for merge not keep? LibStar (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first choice is a keep. My second choice is a merge if consensus is against a standalone article. The five sources I've listed were found through a Google search. Since editors consider them insufficient to establish notability, I will do a more exhaustive search for print sources. These are sources that cannot be found in a Google search. It takes a lot more time to do this exhaustive search, so I usually do the Google search approach first.
The first source I found casts an unflattering light on the school as it says that 20% of the teachers resigned owing to being overworked. Here is the source:
"真道書院9教師呈辭" [9 teachers from Union Logos Academy resign]. The Sun (in Chinese). 2005-08-04. p. A12.
The article notes: "在電視節目《殘酷一叮》三連霸的「莫生」莫凱謙現正就讀的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，今年將有五分一教師共九人離職，有教師指離職原因是因為工作辛苦。"
From Google Translate: "One-fifth of the teachers from Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, where Mok Kai-him, who won three consecutive championships in the TV program "Cruel One", is currently studying, will resign this year. Some teachers said that the reason for resigning was because of the hard work."
The article notes: "○二年創校的真道書院是一間直資一條龍學校，中小學共用約五十名教師，當中有近兩成共九名教師，在今學年完結後離任。"
From Google Translate: "Founded in 2002, Union Logos Academy is a direct subsidy one-stop school with a total of about 50 teachers in primary and secondary schools. Among them, nearly 20%, a total of nine teachers, resigned after the end of this school year."
I will keep searching for sources and when I'm done, I will post the rest of the sources here. I will do this within the next few hours. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I explained above why I didn't search for these sources earlier. I have found numerous additional sources about the school. I omitted the numerous positive articles and have focused on the negative articles since there were concerns earlier about the sources being "marketing" or "promotion". I think these sources should be sufficient to establish notability. If they are not, I could continue my search for sources since these are only some of the hundreds of results about the school that I found. Here are the additional sources.

The Sun article about 20% of the school's teachers resigning for being overworked 2005

Articles about the school's primary school students being disallowed in 2008 from participating in a competition because of how its academic system is different from other schools':

Sources

Chen, Qiuxia 陳秋霞 (2008-02-25). "真道小六生列學生參賽學體會評級方式惹非議" [Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy Primary 6 students participate in the competition, and the learning experience grading method has attracted criticism]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). p. A9.
The article notes: "西貢區的香港華人基督教聯會真道學院第六年辦學，一直採用「兩年基礎階段+五年拓展階段+四年通達階段」的十一年中小學一條龍教學制度，不同於現行「六年小學+五年中學”十一年中小學教育。若依年齡劃分，現時真道二百二十一位就讀「拓階四」的學生是傳統的「小六生」，不過該階段學生接受政府中學資助，○七/○八年中學概覽內也劃分他們為「中一生」。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Council Zhendao College in Sai Kung District is in its sixth year of operation. It has been using an eleven-year one-stop teaching system for primary and secondary schools of "two years of basic stage + five years of expansion stage + four years of mastery stage", which is different from the current "six-year" "Primary school + five years of secondary school" eleven years of primary and secondary education. If divided by age, the current 221 students of Zhendao who are studying in "Top Level 4" are traditional "Primary 6 students". However, students at this stage receive government secondary school subsidies and are also classified in the 2007/08 Secondary School Profile. They are "middle life"."
"真道「小學生」被禁參賽風波" [Controversy over Logos Academy's "primary school students" being banned from participating in the competition]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2008-02-26. p. F1.
The article notes: "以十一年中小學學制為賣點的將軍澳香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，想不到其與別不同的學制，引起一場小學生停賽風波。第六年在該校就讀的拓展階段四年級(DS4)學生，尷尬地處於中小學的中間點，學界體育聯會西貢區小學分會認為，DS4學生既接受中學資助，應被界定為中學生，故此禁止參加本學年剩餘的小學際與區際比賽。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O, which sells its eleven-year primary and secondary education system, unexpectedly caused a controversy among primary school students due to its different academic system. The expansion stage fourth grade (DS4) students who study in the school for the sixth year are awkwardly in the middle point between primary and secondary schools. The Sai Kung District Primary School Branch of the School Sports Federation believes that DS4 students should be defined as secondary school students since they receive secondary school subsidies. They are prohibited from participating in inter-elementary and inter-district competitions for the remainder of the school year."
"直資校參加學界賽腰斬" [DSS schools lose half of their participation in school competition]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2008-02-25. p. A20.
The article notes: "本港學制日益多元化，不再局限於傳統中小學之分，惟學界體育比賽制度僵化，繼續以中小學劃分，令到一間直資名校的近百名十一歲學生，因其所讀的課程等同於中學課程，被拒與傳統學制同樣十一歲的小六學生比賽，學生參賽資格即時被腰斬，學子無辜，慘成官僚制度下，政治鬥爭的犧牲品。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong’s academic system is increasingly diversified and is no longer limited to traditional primary and secondary schools. However, the school sports competition system is rigid and continues to be divided into primary and secondary schools. This has caused nearly a hundred 11-year-old students from a prestigious direct subsidy school to be divided. The courses he studied were equivalent to middle school courses, and he was refused to compete with the 11-year-old Primary 6 students in the traditional school system. The student's qualifications were immediately cut in half. The innocent student became a victim of political struggles under the bureaucracy."

The school was harshly criticised in 2010 by Hong Kong's Audit Commission for administrative misconduct regarding property purchases and tuition fees. This led to hearings by the Legislative Council Accounts Committee. It led to at least one hundred articles covering the fallout which spanned at least several months. Here are a few of those sources:

Sources

"德信售校章利潤1.5倍教局六方面跟進監察直資校" [Dexin's profit from selling school seals is 1.5 times. Education Bureau follows up on six aspects to monitor DSS schools]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-21. p. A7.
The article notes: "立法會帳目委員會昨天就直資學校的監管舉行最後一場聆訊，重點討論三所直資學校的違規行徑，包括運用七千萬元投資的德望學校、用一千萬元購買三個該物業的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，"
From Google Translate: "The Legislative Council Accounts Committee held the last hearing on the supervision of DSS schools yesterday, focusing on the irregularities of three DSS schools, including the Good Hope School, which used HK$70 million of investment, the Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which used HK$10 million to purchase three properties ..."
The article notes: "議員何秀蘭質疑，真道書院有否將盈餘儲備作投資或購買物業，減少學校現金流，以用作申請加學費理由。教育局首席助理秘書長李煜輝表示，該校○八╱○九及○九╱一○兩學年均有加費，但局方發現於○九年八月三十一日的現金流有七千多萬元，連同物業和基金股票等，已超過局方規定的儲備上限，由於盈餘過高，局方已拒絕其一○╱一一學年加學費的申請。局方稱，核准學校加費不單是考慮學校現金流，亦有其他因素。局長孫明揚補充，校方加費須得到家長同意，校方亦要遞交發展計劃，由局方釐定學校是否可以存有大量盈餘。"
From Google Translate: "Councillor Cyd Ho questioned whether Logos Academy had used its surplus reserves for investment or property purchases to reduce the school’s cash flow, which could be used as a reason to apply for a tuition increase. Li Yuhui, Chief Assistant Secretary of the Education Bureau, said that the school had increased fees in both the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 academic years, but the bureau found that the cash flow on August 31, 2009 was more than 70 million yuan, together with properties and fund stocks, which exceeded the reserve limit stipulated by the bureau. Due to the excessive surplus, the bureau has rejected its application for a tuition increase in the 2010/2011 academic year. The bureau said that approving a school to increase fees is not only based on the school's cash flow, but also on other factors. Secretary Sun Mingyang added that the school must obtain the consent of parents to increase fees, and the school must also submit a development plan, and the bureau will determine whether the school can have a large surplus."
"真道放寬學費減免收入限制" [Logos Academy relaxes income limit for tuition exemption]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p. A12.
The article notes: "上月審計報告重點審查的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，被揭發擁有1900 萬盈餘但學費減免條件嚴苛，又以個人名義購置單位作教師宿舍。真道學院近日已作多方改善，昨日3 名校董連同校長，與400 名家長會面，提出5項措施回應，包括放寬申請家庭的學費減免收入限制，鼓勵清貧學生報讀。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was the focus of last month’s audit report, was revealed to have a surplus of HK$19 million but had strict conditions for tuition exemptions and purchased units in individual names as teachers’ dormitories. Logos Academy has made many improvements in recent days. Yesterday, three school directors and the principal met with 400 parents and proposed five measures in response, including relaxing the income limit for tuition exemptions for applying families and encouraging poor students to apply."
"真道書院開家長會跟進審計報告指控" [Logos Academy held a parent meeting to follow up on the accusations in the audit report]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p. A26.
The article notes: "遭審計報告羅列多宗「罪行」的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，昨天下午舉行家長會。該校多名校董出席，與約400名家長會面。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was hit with numerous “crimes” in the audit report, held a parents’ meeting yesterday afternoon. Many school directors attended and met with about 400 parents."
"真道書院聘會計師核賬" [Logos Academy hires accountants to audit accounts]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p. A14.
The article notes: "於直資審計風暴中屢被批評多項行政失當的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，昨日再召開家長會，安排校董會向家長講解事件最新進展。校監陸幸泉提出多項措施「補鑊」，包括聘請羅兵咸會計師重新檢視學校帳目、釐定學校採購政策競價投標準則等，以個人名義購買的一間村屋及居屋亦將作物業轉名事宜。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which has been repeatedly criticised for multiple administrative misconducts during the direct subsidy audit storm, held another parent meeting yesterday and arranged for the school board to explain the latest developments of the incident to parents. School Superintendent Luk Xingquan proposed a number of measures to "make up for the wok", including hiring accountants Luo Bingham to re-examine the school's accounts, determining the school's procurement policy and bidding criteria, etc."
"真道近2000萬助學金未批出教局反對用作添設備必要時接管學校" [Logos Academy's nearly 20 million scholarships have not been approved. The Education Bureau objects to using them to add equipment and take over the school if necessary.]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-01. p. A4.
The article notes: "於直資學校「審計風暴」中被重點查帳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，已被教育局書面警告須及時糾正違規買物業及助學金儲備使用率低等問題。... 接近政府的消息稱，教育局認為學費減免是為有經濟需要的學生而設，不認同用作添置設備；局方會留意校方最終如何落實改善違規工作，若成效不彰，便會由教育局常任秘書長派員進駐學校管理委員會接手校政。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was the focus of audits in the "audit storm" of direct subsidy school schools, has been given a written warning by the Education Bureau to promptly correct problems such as illegal property purchases and low utilisation of bursary reserves. ... Sources close to the government said that the Education Bureau believes that the tuition fee reduction is for students with financial needs and does not agree that it will be used to purchase equipment. The Bureau will pay attention to how the school ultimately implements the improvement of violations. If the results are not effective, the Education Bureau's permanent secretary-general will dispatch personnel to the school management committee to take over school administration."
Ni, Qingjiang 倪清江; Xia, Zhili 夏志禮 (2010-11-27). "最後通牒即將到期校監校長拒轉業權　教局擬進駐真道校董會" [The ultimatum is about to expire. The school supervisor and principal refuse to transfer ownership. The Education Bureau plans to join the Logos Academy Board of Directors.]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). p. A5.
The article notes: "被審計署揭23宗罪的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，挪用1,000萬元非政府資金購置3項物業，業權卻是校監和校長。教育局原來早已知悉，多番促請他們將業權轉回校方，但不獲理會，早前發出最後通牒，日內到期。若真道繼續當教育局無到，局方將派人進駐該校校董會，情形有如去年撤銷辦學權的臻美黃幹亨小學暨國中學校的翻版。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was exposed by the Audit Office for 23 crimes, misappropriated HK$10 million of non-governmental funds to purchase three properties, but the ownership was owned by the school supervisor and principal. It turned out that the Education Bureau had known about it for a long time and had repeatedly urged them to transfer the ownership back to the school, but was ignored. It had earlier issued an ultimatum that would expire within a few days. If Logos Academy continues to be in charge of the Education Bureau and there is no one, the Bureau will send people to the school board of directors, and the situation will be a replica of the Zhenmei Huangqianheng Primary School and Junior High School that revoked its schooling rights last year."

"自辦刊物" [Self-organised publications]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2010-07-06. p. E6.
The column says at the bottom that it was written by the Sing Tao Daily editor-in-chief.
The column notes: "位於將軍澳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，是近年區內成立的直資中學，該校就辦了一本名為《真道人》(見圖)的刊物，介紹學校的理念和發展，至今已經出版了兩期。真道書院出版這本《真道人》，以一本機構刊物來說，可以說不簡單，新一期的內容除了由校長講解學校取得的國際認證AdvancED外，還有其他親子專題、閱讀版等，從內容、版面設計到紙質，都顯示投入了相當的資源。從刊物的製作班底看，除了校內老師班底，還有資深教育新聞從業員郭玉蘭參與，難怪專題報道形式和深度相當接近傳媒。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O is a direct subsidy secondary school established in the district in recent years. The school has published a publication called "Logos People" (see picture) to introduce the school's philosophy and development. So far, it has two issues were published. Logos Academy publishes "Logos People", which is not simple for an institutional publication. In addition to the principal explaining the international certification AdvanceED obtained by the school, the new issue also includes other parent-child topics, reading editions, etc. From the content, layout design to paper quality, it shows that considerable resources have been invested. Judging from the publication's production team, in addition to the school's teacher team, Guo Yulan, a senior education news practitioner, is also involved. No wonder the format and depth of the special report are quite similar to those of the media."

Cunard (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The additional sources provided by Cunard are sufficient to meet NSCHOOL, in addition there is more coverage where the school involved in a scandal where a member of leadership made a controversial statement regarding the 2019 protests, example article: [56]. Jumpytoo Talk 09:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The article about another controversy involving the school is a good find, thank you, Jumpytoo (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 22:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet GNG per the many sources above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:15, 30 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, primary, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 02:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
1. Lam, Yim-hung 林艷虹 (2022-11-24). "優才（楊殷有娣）書院特色課程培育多元人才" [G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College's special courses cultivate diverse talents]. Hong Kong Economic Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "優才（楊殷有娣）書院（下稱優才）為直資一條龍學校，小學初小部（小一至小三）位於旺角校舍，高小部（小四至小六）及中學部（中一至中六）則設於將軍澳校舍。 ... 值得一提的是，優才以推動資優教育見稱，校名英文縮寫G.T.，G代表Gifted，即與生俱來的天賦；T是Talent，表示每一個小朋友都有獨特才華，因此提供多元特色課程來培育孩子。"
  From Google Translate: "G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College (hereinafter referred to as G.T.) is a one-stop school under the Direct Subsidy Scheme. The lower primary section (Primary 1 to Primary 3) is located in the Mong Kok campus, the upper primary section (Primary 4 to Primary 6) and the secondary section (Secondary 1 to 6 ) is located at the Tseung Kwan O campus. ... It is worth mentioning that Youcai is well-known for promoting gifted education. The English abbreviation of the school name is G.T., G stands for Gifted, which is innate talent; T stands for Talent, which means that every child has unique talents, so it provides diverse Special courses to nurture children."
2. Hui, Lok-hang 許珞珩; Cheung, Wai-ting 張瑋婷 (2022-10-24). "升小備戰｜直資優才(楊殷有娣)書院小學部　5層架構推動資優教育" [Preparing for primary school entrance｜Directly gifted G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College 5-tier structure promotes gifted education] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "優才（楊殷有娣）書院小學部共有兩個校舍，小一至小三的初小部校舍位於旺角洗衣街，高小與中學部則共用將軍澳調景嶺嶺光街校舍。學校由天才教育協會會長李業富教授於1996年創辦，多年來均實行小班教學及分組學習形式，老師會按學生的能力及長處分成小組，每班6組、每組約4人，不同科目也採用此形式上課。"
  From Google Translate: "The primary school of G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College has two school buildings. The junior school building for primary one to primary three is located on Sai Yee Street, Mong Kok. The upper primary school and the secondary school share the Ling Kwong Street school building, Tiu Keng Leng, Tseung Kwan O. The school was founded in 1996 by Professor Li Yipfu, President of the Gifted Education Association. For many years, it has implemented small class teaching and group learning. Teachers will divide students into groups according to their abilities and strengths. Each class has 6 groups with about 4 people in each group. Different subjects are also included in the school. Take this class."
3. Hui, Melody (2023-05-09). "優才小學5.13開始報名校長分享3大面試貼士小朋友有一個特質最重要" [G.T. Primary School starts registration on May 13. The principal shares 3 interview tips. There is one trait that is most important for children.]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "直資一條龍小學優才（楊殷有娣）書院小學部每年吸引超過3,000人報讀小一，學校推行獨特的教學模式，及深受家長喜歡小班教學，以每級5班、每班不超過26人，每年提供約130個小一學位，平均27人爭1學位，競爭非常激烈。本周六（13日）為2024／25年度小一報名日期，陳偉傑校長回覆記者查詢時，分享學校的教學特式、面試貼士及模式。優才最吸引家長的其中一個原因是一條龍學校，逾九成學生直升中一，而中學部同時開辦中學文憑試（DSE）及國際預科文憑（IB）雙軌課程，小學學生在無需面對升中選校的壓力下，可充分享受校園學習生活。"
  From Google Translate: "The primary section of the DSS one-stop primary school Youcai (Yang Yin Youdi) College attracts more than 3,000 students to apply for primary one every year. The school implements a unique teaching model and is well received by parents for its small class teaching. There are 5 classes per level and no more than 26 students per class. There are about 130 primary one places available every year, and an average of 27 people compete for one place. The competition is very fierce. This Saturday (13th) is the registration date for Primary One students in 2024/25. When responding to reporters’ inquiries, Principal Chen Weijie shared the school’s teaching style, interview tips and models. One of the reasons why Youcai is most attractive to parents is that it is a one-stop school, with more than 90% of students going directly to Form 1. The secondary school also offers dual-track courses of Diploma of Secondary Education (DSE) and International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB), so primary school students do not have to face Under the pressure of choosing a school for high school, you can fully enjoy campus study life."
4. Chan, Yik-chiu 陳奕釗. "香港學校｜優才(楊殷有娣)書院壓縮正統課程特色教學培育優秀學生" [Hong Kong School｜G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College compresses the orthodox curriculum and cultivates outstanding students with unique teaching]. am730 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "優才(楊殷有娣)書院特別注重兩文三語、語文能力及溝通技巧。學校不單實行普教中，更讓學生學習法文、韓文、日文、意大利文及西班牙文等第三語言。... 成績方面，學校前年出了3位IB狀元，在全球3,500所IB高中學校中名列第11，香港則排名第3。2023年該校學生IB成績亦不俗：有一個45分狀元、兩個44分榜眼。而本屆69位畢業生中，該校有86%同學在Jupas獲得好成績，能入讀心儀大學及課程，"
  From Google Translate: "G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College pays special attention to biliteracy, trilingualism, language proficiency and communication skills. The school not only provides general education, but also allows students to learn third languages such as French, Korean, Japanese, Italian and Spanish. ... In terms of results, the school produced three IB top scorers the year before last, ranking 11th among 3,500 IB high schools in the world, and Hong Kong ranked third. The IB results of the school's students in 2023 are also good: there is one top scorer with a score of 45, two top scorers Second place with 44 points. Among the 69 graduates this year, 86% of the school’s students obtained good results in Jupas and were able to enter the university and course of their choice."
5. "Direct Subsidy Scheme Schools". South China Morning Post. 2009-06-13. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "Founded in 1997 as a private school and turned DSS in 2002. Merged with Chi Kit School in 2004. Multiple intelligence approach emphasising creativity, self-esteem and social responsibility. Class size: Primary 24; Secondary 24-26. School-based and activity-based curriculum. Over 50 talent classes, run by part-time tutors in small groups, offered twice a week as part of the curriculum. Regular visits to museums and other places of interest. Enhancement for gifted children. Secondary curriculum will lead to HKCEE, HKALE, and other public benchmark tests, IB Diploma may be offered in 2009. Medium of instruction: Primary: Cantonese, with English taught by native speakers. Secondary: English, except Chinese and Chinese history."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College (traditional Chinese: 優才（楊殷有娣）書院; simplified Chinese: 优才（杨殷有娣）书院)) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, promo, interviews, all obviously based on the same info/source, nothing above show WP:SIRS or notability, they just show marketing at work. Nothing wrong with promotion, but it doesn't equal notability. // Timothy :: talk 12:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find any evidence of the sources being "based on the same info/source" since they discuss different aspects of the school. WP:SIRS is part of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, a non-profit educational institution like G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College needs to meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which this school does. Cunard (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A very decent search of sources by Cunard. I personally have some doubts on the reliability of Sundaykiss (as well as all outlets of New Media Group [zh]), but the other sources from Hong Kong Economic Journal, HK01, am730, and South China Morning Post are fine and all demonstrated notability of the school. I disagree with Timothy's claims that the sources are based on the same information and are simply for promotional purposes. For instance, the SCMP source was published in 2009, the HKEJ source was published in 2022, while the am730 source was published in 2024, so these sources are very unlikely to be based on the same source of information or sharing the same source materials. Besides, the sources are also obviously covering different topics. For instance, the SCMP source was discussing the schools of the Direct Subsidy Scheme, an educational policy in Hong Kong. The HKEJ source is about gifted education in the school. The am730 source is about the curriculum and academic results of the school in recent years. I think these few sources are quite neutral, at least hardly be considered as advertising the school or whatsoever, and obviously covering different aspects of the school. Moreover, the sources provided by Cunard are also only the tip of an iceberg, as there are in fact a lot more older sources. (For instance, a Sing Tao Daily article in 2015 about the school's public examination results[57], a TOPick article in 2018 about the school's reform policies on examinations[58], a Sky Post article in 2018 about the school's extra-curricular activities[59], a HK01 article in 2019 about the school's application and interview details[60], a Tai Kung Pao article in 2019 about the school being the first three schools to introduce the Citizenship and Social Development subject[61], etc.) Therefore, I agree that this article has well passed GNG and fulfilled the requirement of WP:NSCHOOL. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:02, 31 May 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. Partially based on a lack of cogent response to the source analysis table and its findings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Kings Obi

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

Fails WP:GNG or any related SNG. Sources are either passing mention, primary or not independent of the subject. The only sources that give SIGCOV are obviously promotional paid puffs and connected to the subject. The Vanguard piece [62], and the Independent pieces [63], [64] are examples. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is a notable figure in Nigeria and has enough sources to prove this. The passing mentions for were added to as an evidence to a sentence. The references about the African Creators Summit were also added to evidence the information that he is the founder of the summit Mevoelo (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NGRS these sources are considered generally reliable: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Vanguard is considered generally not reliable, but with all these subject would meet WP:BASIC.Hkkingg (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider this or this a good source, then I’m afraid you do not know what a good source that is suitable for Wikipedia is. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete: Per nomination above. ᗩvírαm7 • [@píng mє] 09:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aviram7. Why is this a speedy delete? Which WP:CSD criteria does this meet? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Novem Linguae: Hello, I use XFD Partipcaition tool for vote on here, I simple tagged for delete but I don't known how add delete before speedy sentence, and I know all WP:AFD discussion who are currently open they will be closing after 1 Week and I fixed this issue. Happy editing!ᗩvírαm7 • [@píng mє] 05:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks for clarifying. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Below is source assessment of the sources cited in this article;

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://tribuneonlineng.com/unique-kings-obi-makes-it-top-5-list-of-talent-managers/	This is more or less a vanity list	Even though Nigerian Tribune is reliable per WP:NGRS, What's journalism without bylines?	~	✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2024/01/01/championing-collaboration-the-inspiration-behind-the-african-creators-academy/	This is obvious from reading the piece	Even though This Day is reliable per WP:NGRS,What's journalism without bylines?	This doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV on him, rather on "The African Creators Academy" which in itself is still really not a significant coverage	✘ No
https://www.pulse.ng/business/domestic/nigerian-creative-industry-launches-the-african-creators-summit/xgzd2dd	Pieces from "PULSE MIX" are usually promo puff, paid advertorials etc.	per WP:NGRS	Of course not, this is more or less a coverage on "African Creators Summit" and not Obi	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/01/lasisi-unveils-as-host-for-african-creators-summit/#:~:text=The%20organizers%20of%20the%20African,January%2025th%20and%2026th%2C%202024.	I will not assess the independence of this source since it does not apply to Obi	~ Publication is marginally reliable per WP:NGRS, but this piece lacks a byline which renders the whole piece useless here on Wikipedia.	Just like Pulse Nigeria above	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/01/meet-unique-kings-obi-talent-manager-digital-marketer/	Obvious paid advertorial, promotional puffery	Ditto		✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2023/04/08/the-future-of-the-nigerian-content-industry-a-conversation-with-unique-kings-obi/	This is an interview published in a way that makes it read like a news piece. The headline says it all "A Conversation With Unique Kings Obi". "When asked about", "Obi points out", etc.	Ditto	This is not WP:SIGCOV on Obi.	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/content-distribution-in-the-digital-age-unique-kings-obis-approach-to-reaching-global-audiences/	Promotional puffery and paid advertorial.	Promotional puffery and paid advertorial.	This is not WP:SIGCOV on Obi.	✘ No
https://tribuneonlineng.com/top-5-talent-managers-nurturing-success-in-entertainment-industry/	This is a duplicate publication by Nigerian Tribune that I assessed first, so, Ditto	Ditto	~ Ditto	✘ No
https://independent.ng/unique-kings-obi-paving-way-for-digital-talents-to-soar/	Promotional puffery and paid advertorial.	Promotional puffery and paid advertorial.	Promotional puffery and paid advertorial.	✘ No
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/music/211256-okiemute-ighorodje-emerges-winner-mtn-project-fame.html?tztc=1	I am not going to assess this source as it is reliable but does not apply to Obi	Ditto	Ditto	✘ No
https://independent.ng/solvent-digital-moves-to-better-customer-service-relationships/	I am not going to assess this source as it does not apply to Obi	Ditto	Ditto	✘ No
https://techcabal.com/2024/01/19/african-creators-summit-2024-countdown-to-africas-foremost-creative-workshop/	Pieces by "Partner" from TechCabal" are usually sponsored/paid advertorials. In fact, this tells the whole story of all the sources used in this article.	Sponsored contents are not considered reliable	This is not WP:SIGCOV on Obi.	✘ 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}}.

--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any comment to the source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thank you to Vanderwaalforces for the detailed source analysis. I looked at several, all of which were so clearly biased that they are worthless. When the sources are so promotional, it's no surprise that the article is too. Toadspike [Talk] 00:21, 9 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 02:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
1. Chan, Margaret (1993-10-18). "Making studies enjoyable". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School, Po Lam Estate, Tseung Kwan O. ... This year, the school implemented an orientation programme for its 11 new teaching staff. The programme introduces the new teachers to the aims of the school; explains teaching procedures; and allows them to share their opinions and experiences after a few weeks in the new job. ... This year, the school has also introduced a new Form 1 subject called Computer Literacy. ... Since the school was founded in 1987, the quality of students has improved greatly. It accepted mostly Band 4 students in 1987, but now most students are in Band 1. ... The Christian school was founded in 1987. It is not affiliated to any particular church. ... Students are taught in Chinese and English, both sharing equal prominence. ... The school has 26 classrooms and laboratories for Integrated Science, Chemistry, Physics and Biology."
2. Ruby (2022-07-26). "西貢區中學Band1學校集結｜演藝界新星準備發光發亮" [Sai Kung District Secondary School Band 1 schools gather｜Rising stars in the entertainment industry are ready to shine]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "迦密主恩中學迦密主恩中學是西貢區將軍澳新市鎮內第一個中學校舍，亦是第一間資助英文中學。所以它在早期已經是區內的知名band 1 英中，是區內採用英語授課歷史最悠久的學校！實力一定不會差。交流計劃及海外遊學團是他們基本的活動，固此他們的學生很早已經接觸外國文化，英文水平更是優秀。與其他區的名校一樣，迦密主恩中學一樣著重STEM教育（科學、技術、工程及數學），學校就有STEM課程包括生物科技及3D打印技術，更有VR虛擬實景供同學發揮創意，說不定香港的將來科學家就是出自迦密主恩中學！"
  From Google Translate: "Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary Schooll is the first secondary school building in the new town of Tseung Kwan O, Sai Kung District, and the first aided English secondary school. Therefore, it was already a well-known band 1 English-Chinese school in the district in the early days, and it is the school with the longest history of teaching in English in the district! The strength will definitely not be bad. Exchange programs and overseas study tours are their basic activities. Therefore, their students have been exposed to foreign cultures very early, and their English proficiency is even better. Like other prestigious schools in the district, Carmel Lord's Grace Middle School also focuses on STEM education (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). The school has STEM courses including biotechnology and 3D printing technology, and also has VR virtual reality for students to express their creativity. Maybe Hong Kong’s future scientists will come from Carmel Lord’s Grace School!"
3. "西貢將軍澳13校縮班" [Sai Kung Tseung Kwan O School 13 reduces classes]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2011-01-29. p. A13.
  The article notes: "繼北區中學自願縮班紓緩殺校壓力後，另一個「重災區」西貢及將軍澳區，13間中學昨日亦達成協議，各自縮減一班，包括名英中學迦密主恩中學"
  From Google Translate: "After the North District middle schools voluntarily reduced their classes to relieve the pressure of school killings, 13 middle schools in Sai Kung and Tseung Kwan O districts, another "hardest-hit area", also reached an agreement yesterday to reduce the number of classes by one class each, including the main school of Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School."
  The article notes: "迦密主恩中學創校24年，校舍建於八十年代，校長林瑞美指校舍只有25個課室，98年該校成為區內唯一英中，最高峯時多達31班，課室長期不敷應用，於是在頂樓加建一層，但新建樓層每逢雨天經常漏水，要用膠袋和喉管勉強支撐，曾試過有膠袋變成“水彈”墮下，影響正在考試的學生。去年起該校為應付新高中學制，更要藉用旁邊小學課室上課。"
  From Google Translate: "Carmel Lord's Grace Secondary School was founded 24 years ago. The school building was built in the 1980s. Principal Lin Ruimei pointed out that the school building only has 25 classrooms. In 1998, the school became the only English-medium school in the district. At its peak, there were 31 classes. The classrooms were not fully utilized for a long time, so an additional floor was built on the top floor, but the newly built floor often leaked on rainy days, and had to be barely supported by plastic bags and pipes. In one case, a plastic bag turned into a "water bomb" and fell, affecting students who were taking exams. Since last year, in order to cope with the new high school academic structure, the school has to borrow classrooms from the neighboring primary school for classes."
4. Yun, Nga-ting 袁雅婷 (2023-02-01). "香港學校｜迦密主恩中學全人優質基督教教育培養品學兼優生" [Hong Kong School｜Carmel Lord's Grace Secondary School, holistic high-quality Christian education, cultivating students with excellent moral character and academic performance]. am730 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "學校亦著重STEM的發展。他說，學校運用三層架構發展同學相關的興趣及能力，第一層是全校參與模式，所有同學在初中到高中階段，課程都加入STEM元素。學生一般到大學才有機會接觸生物科技，但該校已設有生物科技實驗室，讓同學在中二開始對該科目有所理解，例如有關培植細菌、找出較強殺菌清潔劑的實驗等。高中就有各項STEM活動，例如STEM Day，所有學生都會參與其中。"
  From Google Translate: "The school also focuses on the development of STEM. He said that the school uses a three-tier structure to develop students' relevant interests and abilities. The first level is a whole-school participation model. All students from junior high school to senior high school have STEM elements added to the curriculum. Students generally have the opportunity to come into contact with biotechnology only when they go to university, but the school already has a biotechnology laboratory, allowing students to begin to understand the subject in Secondary 2, such as experiments on cultivating bacteria and finding stronger antiseptic cleaners. There are various STEM activities in high schools, such as STEM Day, in which all students participate."
5. "將軍澳迦密主恩中學擧行三屆畢業禮，温漢璋勉勵必須有信心以將軍澳為家鄉發光芒" [Tseung Kwan O's Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School held its third graduation ceremony. Wan Hon-cheung encouraged the audience to have the confidence to shine in Tseung Kwan O as their hometown.]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1991-06-15. p. 6. Retrieved 2024-05-15 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard and NORG. gidonb (talk) 19:58, 28 May 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 redirect‎ to Dilawar Malik. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laal Ishq (Pakistani TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First things first—NTV is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. Secondly, yes, it fails to meet WP:GNG because I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage which isn't sufficient. For example, this coverage based on interviews doesn't meet GNG because it's not independent of the subject, and this other coverage is more like a press release. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for average hits we have to rely on other industry sources which otherwise may not be good sources but good enough for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Muneebll, But still you have to demonstrate that this TV dramas meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum. Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to keep an article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dilawar_Malik: (director) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:58, 22 May 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angna (TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes it fails to meet GNG because I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. Some ROTM coverage like this isn't sufficient. The article is based on several unreliable sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for other dramas we have to rely on other industry sources which otherwise may not be good sources but are fair enough for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But still you have to demonstrate that this TV dramas meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum. Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to keep an article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And until we have coverage in multiple sources, we can't create an article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while this could be redirected to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Long_format/Soaps, there seems to be coverage showing it's notable: https://www.hipinpakistan.com/news/1159511 ; https://www.bolnews.com/entertainment/2022/06/angna-handles-trauma-delicately-but-leaves-loose-ends/ and so on. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, HIP is content farm website. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As explained above, this series doesn't have coverage outside of the originating media organization, pretty much limiting any hope of GNG or other notability. I can't find sources about this we'd use either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:17, 29 May 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 redirect‎ to Adeel Razzaq#Television. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dulhan (TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage. The article relies on unreliable sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for other dramas we have to rely on websites and links which otherwise may not be good sources but are sufficient for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Muneebll, But still you have to demonstrate that this TV dramas meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adeel_Razzaq#Television -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:52, 22 May 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 redirect‎ to A-Plus TV#Anthology series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haqeeqat (2019 TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for other dramas we have to rely on websites and links which otherwise may not be good sources but are good enough for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Muneebll, But still you have to demonstrate that this TV dramas meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum. Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to keep an article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A-Plus_TV#Anthology_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:51, 22 May 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 The Sarah Jane Adventures. While arguments for deletion are weak, the rough consensus is that the content is better suited for the target article than for a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 16:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Adding together many non-notable topics still gives you a non-notable topic. Some character articles like Sarah Jane Smith are notable but does not support having a list about every character in the series, which do not have significant coverage as required by WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep character lists' topic is the fictional element (The Sarah Jane Adventures), and are roundly considered to meet CSC #2. That is, no policy-based reason for deletion has been articulated. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^{[by whom?]} 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impossible Worlds, Impossible Things: Cultural Perspectives on Doctor Who, Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures has commentary on the characters in the series, starting from Sarah Jane, but also about the other characters as a group. Daranios (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. The problem here is less notability, but more size. The list can likely have the bulk of its content merged into the cast list already in the article given the bulk of characters here are at least decently recurring. This feels like it was dropped partway through, since the only characters beyond the significant recurring characters are minor characters from the first episode exclusively. If this does survive, it needs a major TNT/overhaul, but personally I don't see a reason for this to exist just based off of size reasons. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename, or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. I am not convinced the split into cast and minor characters is beneficial. So I could imagine keeping and renaming this into List of The Sarah Jane Adventures characters, and include brief descriptions and links to the cast characters, most of whom have their own articles. Seems helpful to me for navigation. With regard to notability, as mentioned above, I question if it makes any sense to try to divorce conventional fiction works from the characters. What would they be without the characters? Of course there still needs to be enough material in secondary sources to write anything. Still, if one wanted to ask for secondary sources specifically discussing the characters of The Sarah Jane Adventures, Dancing with the Doctor discusses them at various places, as does the book mentioned above and others. So even if one wanted to ask for notability of characters as opposed to the series as such, that would still be fullfilled. All that said, I don't have an overview how much the secondary sources in total have to say on characters other than the main cast (and how incomplete the current list is with regards to what Pokelego999 mentioned), so I cannot say if a stand-alone article or a merge would be best in the long run, based on WP:PAGEDECIDE rather than notability. Daranios (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures per WP:ATD. I only find WP:SIGCOV for characters who already have articles. The minor characters don't have much coverage, but are summed up nicely at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Merge? No support so far for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If asked to decide I would prefer keeping to merging. Hopefully there will be more input. Daranios (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best belong to Fandom, don't anybody think? (Nothing wrong with it though, I frequent visit that site) Serves to nobody but to the most ardent fans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHOCARES is not a valid argument. (and there is an awful lot wrong with fandom) --TheImaCow (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheImaCow: Fixed unclosed small HTML tag that caused display problems on pages transcluding this AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to point out that a list of this is useful for Fandom. Still, whats makes a list of minor characters worthy of a standalone list when most lists of characters are about characters with significant roles, hence my point. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the WP:Common selection criteria for lists is that all the listed items are non-notable. See, e.g., List of minor characters in the Alice series. Other lists, such as List of generation I Pokémon, mix notable and non-notable characters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I reiterate my stance that this should be kept as the best place to cover characters that are individually non-notable. I have seen no compelling reason why this list of elements of an undisputedly notable show should be redirected or deleted. No objection to combining with other character articles (or abstracting from them) to form a more traditional List of The Sarah Jane Adventures characters per WP:SS. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect No indication that people have discussed the characters of this show as a group, and we should not have a list of specifically minor characters for any show. Just because we can have a character list does not mean we should. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:05, 12 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amsvartnir

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

This subject has only trivial mentions in secondary sources. The article fails WP:NOTABILITY because it does not reach the threshold of significant coverage for a separate article. Jontesta (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As with just about every other place or thing in Norse myth, the article could easily be greatly expanded with this or that mention or line of inquiry. It also contains discussion unique to the location. There's no need to merge it into anything else and it shouldn't be deleted. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may be a rather short topic, but I think there's enough coverage in secondary sources to establish stand-alone notability. The Encyclopedia of Imaginary and Mythical Places, p. 19, has an entry and so I think we should, too. This has about half a page of etymological analysis, and this has some more. Both being very old, I expect that there is more up-to-date scholarly analysis out there. Daranios (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful for the nominator to evaluate the sources brought up in the discussion to see if they are acceptable to them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find the other encyclopedia's coverage of it more convincing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:20, 29 May 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 redirect‎ to The Lost Princess of Oz. If editors want to create a new article incorporating some of the content here, it's all right there beneath the redirect. Just provide attribution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City of Thi

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

A WP:BEFORE search presented only trivial mentions about this topic. This article fails WP:NOTABILITY because it does not reach the level of significant coverage required. Jontesta (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as Winkie Country redirects to Land of Oz (since Jan 2024) and the non-primarysource sourcing is non-existent (both here and in the history of Winkie Country), it is hard to envision a reason to keep this article. I do not expect there to be substantial non-(in-universe) coverage. It would take effort to modify Land of Oz to be a plausible redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lost Princess of Oz, this appears to be the best reference. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lost Princess of Oz, the first and, as far as I know, only book this fictional city appeared in. The article is completely unsourced, and searches brought up no significant coverage in reliable sources. Which is not surprising, considering the city was an incredibly minor part of a single book. Rorshacma (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Lost Princess of Oz is the only book it appeared in. I just checked and it takes up about 15% of the book, but it's just one of many strange lands that are (spoiler alert) overcome by Ozma's friends and Cayke and the Frogman.
I'm going to say keep but rename to List of Oz Places (created by Baum) to conform to List of Oz characters (created by Baum). We recently had an AfD for Land of Ev. The Deadly Desert is another obvious target - it has a fresh GNG notice on it from User:Toughpigs so I'm not the only one that notices. Oblivy (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keeping, or even merging it somewhere, kind of needs to have some kind of sources outside of the actual book, and I am honestly finding absolutely nothing. Even sources/summaries about Lost Princess just kind of gloss over it as just stating its one of the odd locations they run across. Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Land of Ev and the Deadly Desert are different — there are some actual sources talking about them as notable features of the Oz stories. City of Thi is a very minor location that I'm surprised to learn has an article. Toughpigs (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also nobody stopping anyone from undoing the redirect or moving the page to their userspace for future notability searches. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they are different, but a huge section of that article is cited to nothing, and some of it is cited to the book itself, and we don't know how much is in the offline book. Land of Ev, too, is a more important place but it didn't feature much after Ozma of Oz, and the article is largely cited to nothing and has a lot of non-Baum content. This one by itself has a very weak do-not-delete rationale but as part of a larger article it could be OK. I don't know whether we can accept a citation to the book (it's widely done, but...)
At some point a decision was made to deal with the characters, and it's a helpful article if people keep nominating these borderline place-in-Oz articles perhaps we can contain them in one place. Meanwhile Land of Oz keeps getting bigger. And there are plenty of places that don't get articles, like the Nome Kingdom. It's not indiscriminate, the Land of Oz as a whole and its features have been written about (I think). Oblivy (talk) 09:13, 23 May 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. It would be great if these sources could find their way into the article itself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaean Reach

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

Non-notable article composed of unreliable or primary sources. A search showed only trivial mentions, no significant coverage in reliable sources. My assessment is that it does not pass WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Science fiction BEFORE searches should include scholar and books. PhD thesis from South Africa here has detailed commentary on pp 91-100, and is contrasted to clearly notable science fiction universes like Asimov's Foundation. Also appears to be covered in Handbook of Vance Space by Andre-Driussi, ISBN 978-0964279568, but I am unable to see previews for that. Also appears in Xeno Fiction: More Best of Science Fiction: A Review of Speculative Literature by Broderick and Ikin, ISBN 978-1479400799, but again--I don't have access beyond snippet view, which appears promising. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the nominator have a response to sources mentioned in the discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To me the provided sources are not trivial mentions and enough to establish notability, and are supplemented by shorter treatments like here or here. Daranios (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Jclemens above. /Julle (talk) 21:18, 1 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PhotoToMovie

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

Non-notable software. A PROD was removed in 2012. SL93 (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article author responded to the 2012 PROD by adding 2 online reviews, which we can see now thanks to the Wayback Machine. Both the LAFCPUG (Feb 2005) and Luminous Landscape (Sept 2005) items are informed 3rd party reviews, which might contribute to notability under the WP:NSOFT essay's criterion 3. However I don't think either these or anything else now retrievable is sufficient to demonstrate that this was more than one among several such products. AllyD (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2024 (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!} 03:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not impressed by the "reviews", also briefly mentioned here [65] and [66], but nothing extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 5 June 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 to delete; consensus to rename to Next Tasmanian state election‎. Malinaccier (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Tasmanian state election

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

Seems way TOO SOON for this article to exist, considering that there are still four years left for the election to occur. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All "next election" articles are implicitly notable, the article should be moved to its redirect (Next Tasmanian state election), but not deleted. AveryTheComrade (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's implicitly notable where are the reliable secondary sources? None of the sources in this article go towards the notability of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is your argument that a Tasmanian election would not be notable? Because a state election in Tasmanian is implicitly notable. And as background is apart of election articles, this type of coverage has already started eg with the speaker being chosen /agreements being signed for the minority government as sourced in the article. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An agreement for minority government for this term of government is your evidence for the 2028 state election? I'm sorry can you point out in that ABC source where it talks about the 2028 election and not merely the outcome of the 2024 election?

Where is your sourcing from multiple secondary reliable sources which demonstrates demonstrates WP:SIGCOV? Demonstrate it is notable with sources. TarnishedPath^talk 05:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Every other state/territory had their "next election" page created shortly after the last, however agree with @AveryTheComrade it should be moved to Next Tasmanian state election Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions and perhaps that practice should cease. TarnishedPath^talk 08:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although WP:OTHERTHINGS may not be a full or 'good' argument it can still be an argument and when in the context of elections is a relevant one. Particularly for main election articles of National and State elections. All of the other 5 states and main 2 territories of Australia have next election articles. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If those articles are about events that are almost 4 years away and the sourcing is as lacking as this articles then you only make an argument for nominating those articles for deletion. TarnishedPath^talk 05:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tasmaina only had an election 2 months ago. Significant coverage of the next election is years away. Similar AfDs of premature election coverage has appeared at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidates of the next Australian federal election (2nd nomination) and the 1st nomination. Teraplane (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is ridiculously WP:TOOSOON. The last election has only just happened and this is almost four years off. TarnishedPath^talk 08:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The next election is not set in stone at 4 years away as the Tas Parliament states Term: the length of time House of Assembly elections - since 1976 this has been a maximum of four years. and that's why I do agree with previous comments that it should be moved to Next Tasmanian state election instead. It should be noted that both previous elections went early at about 3 years each 2018 Tasmanian state election and 2021 Tasmanian state election. And with a hung parliament as described in the article that potential is high again. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Next Tasmanian state election. The next election in a democratic state is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I also agree with the rational of the other comments supporting a keep position. --Enos733 (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Enos733. Next elections are almost always notable and this doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL: only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm still failing to see a single reliable secondary source in the article which talks about the 2028 election. How can anyone possibly argue that this passes WP:GNG without appropriate sourcing? TarnishedPath^talk 12:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem really dead-set on insisting that an article about the 2028 election isn't notable, while failing to address that everyone arguing for keeping the article is in support of renaming it to be more generally the next state election. AveryTheComrade (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely zero coverage in secondary sources. How much more WP:TOOSOON can you get than that? Even if it were to be renamed to Next Tasmanian state election the same statement holds. At best this should be draftify but I don't really see that as much of an alternative to deletion given how far out the election is. TarnishedPath^talk 11:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as not too soon, but consider moving to the less definite title. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to say about the election than "it will happen sometime". If kept, support moving to next Tasmanian state election instead. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 6 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vietnam representatives at international male beauty pageants

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

Irrelevant and random list of pageant contestants has stood unreferenced for going on a decade. (Last referenced version was November 2015). Better to start over, if someone cares to. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there have been recent updates, but unsourced updates about competitions such as Mister Tourism World (which are redlinks) do not engender confidence. Due to the potential of WP:BLP violations, this should be blown up per nom. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Beauty pageants, and Vietnam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Mccapra (talk) 06:14, 5 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2020s

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists heavily of Twitter posts, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, deletion is not clean up. The races televised are very much list cruft, but the sourcing for the year-by-year is sufficient. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it was clean up, I questioned the reliability of sources per WP:RS. Not to forget Bornon tried to add new sources, they still do nothing for notability. Better make use of Fandom and put this list out of its misery. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Go to Fandom" is more or less saying you're trying to use AfD as cleanup, and the snobby tone used won't make you any friends. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all and I don't have anything against Fandom either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio. Sourcing for the prose in the article could be better (a lot of primary refs), but secondary refs do EXIST. The amount of prose in here makes this copy-and-paste rationale by the nom look silly. LISTCRUFT and NOTDATABASE cannot apply here and the proposed ATD is countered by WP:NOMERGE points 1 and 2. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid split? ...which is made of YouTube links. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 23 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2000s

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of mostly dead and redirected pages, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid split? ...which is made of Youube links. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:08, 23 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1990s

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, those centrally about the season and mostly YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid split? ...which is made of Youube links. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:08, 23 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1960s

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid split? ...which is made of YouTube links. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:08, 23 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1970s

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid split? ...which is made of YouTube links. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:08, 23 May 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. Opinions are all over the map here. Editors interested in a Merge can pursue that option outside of this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The events themselves are notable but the topic of whether they appeared or not on television is not. This serves as one massive collection of YouTube links. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I personally find what networks aired what races interesting, but how it is presented in these decade articles is underwhelming (I understand why these pages will probably be deleted). It's also missing what is highly relevant information (up until the late 80s) regarding what sort of broadcast individual races received: live flag-to-flag coverage, joined in progress, tape delayed, condensed tape delayed, or not broadcast at all. The best place for that would be the individual season articles, though. They already have a section listing the entire schedule of races (not the partial schedules we see in some of these articles). A column for the TV network would be simple enough to add to that table and any out of the ordinary details about the nature of the broadcasts could be added to the sections for the individual races (probably not the broadcasting teams since that would be fairly repetitious). --NHL04 (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. @Ajf773: Deletion is not cleanup. Inappropriate content can be removed without needing to delete everything which would potentially be mergeable. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the YT links then you barely have much left other than unsourced entries. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The events are covered in other articles, for example 1980 NASCAR Winston Cup Series and so forth for every year following that. Those lists are sufficient enough to present what is needed. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sure this will close as "no consensus" but I am not seeing a point in keeping this collection on Wikipedia. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Srijanx22: Do you have rationale to provide other than "not seeing a point" in it? You personally not seeing value in it does not mean the subject matter isn't notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this goes as keep or no consensus, this tells you the state of Wikipedia. I do not see how a collection of YouTube links make a list notable. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: As has been told to you in the past, it's not about what the current sourcing is, it's about whether the subject as a whole is notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. The article is a coatrack for a list of (presumably bootleg) Youtube videos, most of which have been taken down. NASCAR on television and radio is a suitable redirect target, but the page history should not be kept. An improved "box score" format for races on pages like 1985 NASCAR Winston Cup Series might include this information, but it would need to be re-created. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand why the page history shouldn't be kept.

The problem becomes that the 60s, 70s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s list nominations all ended in no consensus, while the 2020 nomination ended in keep. This would leave us with a hole between the 70s and 90s that's just not addressed, and any such attempt to fill said gap may end up being G4'd. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:ELNEVER. Also, I see no reason why the 60s/70s articles should not also be deleted (or why the nominations weren't bundled to avoid that possible outcome). Walsh90210 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were initially, but the nominator botched the nomination completely by both forgetting a step and including more than just the "NASCAR on television..." articles. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walsh90210: I fail to understand why you wanted to note WP:ELNEVER to me. Could you explain? Did you perhaps mean to link something else? Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep as a valid split per GhostofDanGurney, also bearing in mind that every other decade survived AFD, which would mean that we've got articles on every decade from the 1960s to present except this one, which would be disorderly and doesn't make sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NASCAR on television and radio. Not seeing any valid use for this standalone. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stifle: But then wouldn't the parent article be unbalanced, as it would be the only decade to be extensively individually focused on whereas all the others have their own standalones? BeanieFan11 (talk)
  - They can all be merged. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable and splitting from the parent article is a good idea (per GhostofDanGurney). If the article needs to be cleaned up, deletion is not the way to do it. Malinaccier (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable, at least for NASCAR on television and radio. What kind of message does linkdumping bootleg Youtube links sends? We should allow them to pass as WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep, merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only difference between this discussion and the discussions for the other decades prior to May 29 (when the others were closed and this was relisted) was the extra delete !vote by Ajf773. Was there a particular reason for only !voting here? I do agree with others above that it would be odd for this decade to be the only one not be allowed to stand alone. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney: While I do, obviously, have issue (as I mentioned above) with the idea that one decade's article gets deleted while the rest did not, it doesn't matters why they voted on one and not the rest, that's entirely acceptable to do. We have no reason to question them on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: My aim with the comment was to try to determine if it was worth seeing if just renominating the whole bundle of decades as a batch (without the other articles that were included the first time) was a good option. I should have been more clear with that and I apologize for coming across as trying to call them out here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with NASCAR on television and radio: per the nom. I'm just not finding the sources covering the broadcasts from this decade as a group, and as such, this fails to meet the WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Merge as a WP:ATD, along with the rest of the articles from this 'series'. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 13 June 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 lack of civility in some of the comments did not make it easier to evaluate this one. In several ways, the delete !voters and nominator make the case that this does not demonstrate notability as supported by reliable sources. For the record: It is not accurate to say that "every scientific paper charges some fee to publish." Respected journals usually do not charge publication fees. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Shishkin

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

Self-proclaimed painter. No notability, no significant achievements, no reliable art criticism. Cross-wiki spam. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article seems to cite reliable sources (academic articles), but I can't be bothered to go through the steps needed to machine translate PDFS (hence, comment, not a vote). However, source analysis is necessary to prove that notability is not given here - the nom makes such a claim but does not provide analysis of sources. It may also be worthwhile to check concurrent discussion at ru:Википедия:К_удалению/14_мая_2024#Шишкин,_Андрей_Алексеевич. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- These sources are not academic in the full sense of the word. They are published in the collections of articles everybody can submit for a a small amount of money, their only author is a local schoolteacher, not an expert in art (this was the main reason for deletion in Russian wikipedia). Not a single art institution knows this painter, no exhibitions, no art criticism. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What is a non-self-proclaimed painter? Is it when someone is actually not a painter, but is called such by someone's else? Isn't that called hoax then? Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-self-proclaimed painter is the painter whose works are in museums and acclaimed galleries, reviewed with art critics and art historians, published in esteemed editions. Wikipedia is for collecting information about this kind of authors. This is what the criteria of notability are about. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  This is a recognized painter. It has nothing to do with self-proclaiming. Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST Ты что, коммунист? что с тобой не так ??? << самопровозглашенный художник >> не можешь терпеть приличное искусство, настоящее, душевное искусство? ахуенный ... 98.240.113.219 (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again due to lack of civil participation. This article seems to be about a painter but the discussion is more charged than one would expect for a borderline notable painter so I'm guessing there is more involved with his reputation than their artistic skills. A reminder, this is the English Wikipedia, please offer your opinions in English.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

very sorry sir just his name is russian i wanted to reply like this i found it to be more pertinent

romanenko's remarks are laced with vitriol below the surface and betray a certain negative attitude, which he also expressed on ruwiki, where he was unfortunately successful in having the corresponding article deleted

@Андрей Романенко tell me that over four hundred paintings like this and reference to your work in scholarly papers is not a 'significant achievement'

how can you call him a 'self-proclaimed painter' looking at the exemplars of his work ???

i have seen on the english-speaking internet several memes using his painting Благословение ратника

this one for example https://ifunny.co/picture/how-it-feels-to-inherit-the-family-suicide-revolver-aUDIhr0PA

they're hard to find by searching, because of course the name and author of the painting are not provided

more professional websites where his work is posted

https://www.rbth.com/arts/335686-ancient-east-slavs-art

https://www.indcatholicnews.com/news/41202

https://christian.art/daily-gospel-reading/luke-2-22-40-2020/

the followers of the rabbi yeshua really like his admittedly charming depiction by the avowed pagan shishkin

some private blogs

https://www.livemaster.com/topic/2998743-legends-and-stories-of-the-artist-andrey-shishkin

https://art-in-eastern-europe.blogspot.com/2016/09/andrey-shishkin.html

not enough criticism for you ? tell me again how he is a 'self-proclaimed painter'

have you painted a wall ? 98.240.113.219 (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- The fact that someone's pictures are available in the Web at different obscure websites does not make their authors notable, neither does being mentioned in nobody knows whose blogs. No exhibtions in any known galleries, no works in museums, no art criticism in any known editions, no catalogues, no prizes, no place in professional art community, zero level of notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  We have already in the article sources from academic journals.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals
  
  This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:
  
  The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
  
  The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
  
  The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
  
  The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
  
  Shishkin is one of the leading figures in pagan / Slavic fantasy art in Russia, a collective body of work, and he is prominently featured in these papers, which are cited in the article. So does he not meet the third criterion ? 98.240.113.219 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Writings of a local schoolteacher published in insignificant editions where authors themselves are paying for publication (see here for instance) are not qualified to determine whether the painter played a major role in anyhting or not. However, the author (A. Gizbrecht) does not claim anything about Shishkin at all, he just briefly mentions several of his paintings. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Were the authors "local schoolteachers" or not?
      
      And you must know that every scientific paper charges some fee to publish
      
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_processing_charge
      
      98.240.113.219 (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Many good journals do not have apc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding significant, reliable coverage for the subject. Fails WP:ARTIST. I am not finding indications he is in any collections, or been part of any significant exhibitions. Reading what I can of the articles, it appears the references are more about the subject of paganism in art than in discussions of Shishkin's work, with the exception of Art-Vernissage, which is selling his art. An alternative might be to redirect to Russian Rodnover fine arts, but I don't see what information could be added to that article. The artist exists and paints. The biographical info was extracted from a Non-RS sale site. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST The editor above (WomenArtistUpdates) is clearly biased against this article. She's part of the "Women in Red" wikiproject, which aims to change the percentage of biographical articles about men and women to "reduce systemic bias". It's obviously in her interest to reduce the number of biographical articles about men to make her "job" easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.64.55.216 (talk • contribs)

What a ridiculous claim. Aside from the personal attack, there are far too many biographies for this to make a dent in any way. Geschichte (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- That wasn't a personal attack, just an observation.
Delete Nothing in the article or the referenced sources suggests this meets WP:ARTIST at this time. Elspea756 (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
kindly read my above comment with reference to the pertinent notability guideline 98.240.113.219 (talk) 21:02, 4 June 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. I don't think a 3rd relisting would lead to a consensus. There is a basic difference of opinion here among well-intentioned editors on the quality of available sources and standards for notability that need to be met. Of course, those editors interested in pursuing a Redirect option can start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristo Rey San Diego High School

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE fail WP:SIRS, nothing addressing the subject - the San Diego campus - directly and indepth. Article is a unneeded CFORK of Cristo Rey Network, no objection to a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 17:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Per WP:ORGCRIT, local units of larger organizations need to show coverage of the sub-unit beyond the local area. All reliable, secondary sources cited here are local to San Diego. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and redirect~~ Redirect to Cristo Rey Network. No sources found outside of non-independent or non-local media that meet SIGCOV requirements. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cristo Rey Network. Not independently notable. It is already listed at the target, and there is not really anything that needs merging. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See WP:NSCHOOL. WP:ORG specifically says in the first paragraph, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, (italics mine) religions or sects, and sports teams. The appropriate guideline is thus not WP:ORGCRIT, but WP:SIGCOV, which says "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Non-local sources are not required for GNG, and this article has 3 RS from local television news (CBS8 and 2 from ABC 10 News San Diego KGTV), as well as San Diego Entertainer Magazine and San Diego Business Journal, which are independent of the subject, as defined in SIGCOV. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, yes you are correct. A GNG pass is sufficient (SIGCOV is part of that but independent reliable secondary sources are still required - I think you address that though). My problem with the sources cited so far, however, is that these are all local, and describing the new school for what it has set up to be, and the way it is funded. There is, however, a case that there is something innovative (if not revolutionary) about this school, and that this will attract notice. What would clinch it for me is some national attention, or some attention in something other than a news report. I note that there is, in fact, only one ABC 10 News San Diego KGTV source, but even if there were more, they would all be treated as one for purposes of GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
National attention (or even a non-local source) is NOT a requirement of SIGCOV. That's the difference between the NORG requirement and GNG. Non-profit schools can meet the notability requirement with either NORG or GNG or both. This one meets GNG.

I also found and added one additional source announcing a full-ride scholarship opportunity from the University of San Diego. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An announcement of a scholarship is a primary source. Primary sources do not count towards GNG. Also the ABC 10 report is clearly not independent. The writer is a staff writer, but it is based entirely on an interview with the head, and ends with a fundraiser. It also has a questionable claim in it. How can someone be 300% below the poverty line? But I suppose bad maths is not an issue. The writer has a declared interest in faith based schools. The CBS8 source also has primary news/independence issues - it is a piece that is bylined "Cristo Rey San Diego High needs more corporate sponsors for work study program." It appears to be predicated on that basis. I do not see how any of this crosses the GNG threshold. If we have no national sources, local sources need to be in depth and to provide sufficient information to write an article. These sources do not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is a red herring in this thread. In response to @Grand'mere Eugene's comment that this would pass GNG with local sources, WP:NORG supersedes GNG (this is very clear at WP:ORGCRIT). And under WP:BRANCH, a local unit of a national org requires coverage in sources outside of the local area to be considered notable. The only notability this local school has is tied to the unique model of its network, which is why a redirect is best. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NSCHOOL is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) under the section, "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations" that specifies, All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page), the general notability guideline, or both. Either NORG, or GNG, or both. GNG is thus not a "red herring", but one of the ways schools may satisfy WP's notability requirement. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. See, for example: this. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the CBS8 source considered above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the CBS8 and SDEntertainer sources are sufficient for GNG; the arguments that this is insufficient because this is a school affiliated with a national organization are unpersuasive. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that this is not all that the discussion says is wrong with these two local news sources. Sources must be multiple, with significant coverage, independent of the subject, in reliable secondary sources. As above, these are not independent, aspects of them are primary sources, coverage of the school itself is limited and we are still short of multiple. Reliability has not been assessed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute your definition of "independent". Just because a TV station interviews somebody with the school doesn't mean it's not independent. And the "byline" you claim earlier is actually part of the headline. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the headline. So the article is not independent. Likewise I said rather more than just that the article was entirely off an interview with the head. The fact it ends with a fundraiser is also pertinent, and that is not the only problem identified with that source. Now you have made 100 edits to Wikipedia in your 3 days here, and nearly half of these are to AfD or RfD. You are very welcome to the discussion, but might I suggest there may be a little more to the evaluation of sources then you may yet be aware of. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that a CBS station isn't "independent" of a private school because the headline mentions the name of the school? I agree the source isn't perfect, but claims that CBS isn't "independent" of this school make me dismiss everything you say. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I didn't say that. The concern is that the headline makes quite clear that this local news article is predicated on a call for local businesses to act as sponsors for their local school. "... needs more corporate sponsors for work study program." Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— I added another source from ProQuest, which is accessible via Wikipedia Library. To access this source, login to Wikimedia, then login to WP Library before clicking the ProQuest 2550545515 id link.

— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this source, it is another local news source. "The San Diego Business Journal (SDBJ) is a weekly newspaper in San Diego, California covering local business news." - San Diego Business Journal. It is written by the paper's editor (Jay Harn), and is not clearly predicated on a funding drive. The coverage again only talks about the funding model. We really aren't getting much to say about the school beyond the funding model, and if that model were so significant, there ought to be national coverage. As a news source, reporting is a primary source, and sources should be secondary. I still believe that if the funding model itself were notable, a national news source would clinch it. Otherwise, for purely local coverage, more depth is needed about the school itself, such that an article about the school can be written. I will say I am not far from a keep here - I just don't think local reports about the funding model are enough on their own. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 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 redirect‎ to Barkat Siddiqui#As a director. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Khuda

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some namechecks coverage like this, this, and this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:11, 15 May 2024 (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 02:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barkat_Siddiqui#As_a_director -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:50, 22 May 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 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!} 02:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roadman Corner, Indiana

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

Here we have a puzzle, because as far as I can tell, the mappers simply made this name up when the school at this location closed. The Roadman School appears on earlier topos, and it is reasonably well-documented for a rural schoolhouse, mostly because of an attendee's recollections. As far as the "Corner" name is concerned, however, all the GHits are clickbait, and all the GBook hits are federal gazetteers. I find nothing indicating thee was ever a settlement here, in any case. Mangoe (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It wasn't even good enough for "From Needmore to Prosperity : Hoosier place names in folklore and history" so I can't get behind keeping it.James.folsom (talk) 02:50, 26 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bland skurkar, helgon och vanligt folk

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

Failed PROD, dePRODded because Google isn't through enough for a BEFORE check. Unfortunately, I don't have access to other sources, and this article isn't easily redirected. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Finland. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can somebody check Swedish media for notability? Given that the Swedish page for the article lacks sources, I'm doubtful, but it could breathe life into this article. -1ctinus📝🗨 02:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. /Julle (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a tad difficult to get a good overview of sources from things released in 1999, since the archives tend to be less reliable. Nevertheless, this tour seems to have been one of the most signficant of the year. It got an award from one of the biggest Swedish newspapers, it was talked about as "the best tour" and so on. I've tried to expand the article: The singular focus on the album doesn't make sense to me, when the album was a product of an acclaimed tour. My access to sources of the time is not good enough to split them into two separate articles; they belong together. The article also lacked information about the band, which, yet again, might not work as well in a separate article, but should be briefly explained together with the tour and the album. I've expanded the article somewhat and added sources. /Julle (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Finland from the deletion sorting. Seems to have been added my mistake instead of Sweden? Don't see the Finnish connection, but please undo my edit if I'm mistaken. /Julle (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's quite some significant coverage of the tour, the article should probably be expanded to talk more about the tour/band as the main topic like Julle said, the album seems like it would work better as a section to that article. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we have an assessment of available sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From the research I have done, the sourcing mostly is within WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Julle’s assessments above are correct as well.BabbaQ (talk) 06:11, 2 June 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 redirect‎ to A-Plus TV#Drama serials. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoor Pari

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes it fails to meet GNG because i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc.The article is based on some namechecks coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for other dramas we have to rely on websites and links which otherwise may not be good sources but are sufficient for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Muneebll, But still you have to demonstrate that this TV dramas meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum. Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to keep an article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A-Plus_TV#Drama_serials: listed there. Some sources can be transferred. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:13, 22 May 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. Consensus among participants who took the trouble to carefully analyze the sources seems clear. Owen× ☎ 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Nanetti

AfDs for this article:

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

This footballer, who seems to have never played in the top 3 tiers in Italy or top 4 tiers in England, was deemed non-notable in an AfD discussion in 2020. I can't find signicant coverage in reliable sources published since then that would suggest he is now notable – per WP:GNG, as WP:NFOOTBALL is obsolete. The article content is not the same as the version deleted in 2020, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. ^Complex/_Rational 17:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75] among many more English and Italian sources. Clearly siginifciant figure in English lower league football with extnsive career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of these sources, The Sun and Daily Mail are not considered reliable (deprecated, as documented at WP:RS/PS), and several others are blogs/tabloids which have similar shortcomings. Is there anything in more reputed sources such as BBC, Sky News, The Guardian, etc.? ^Complex/_Rational 20:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. seems okay, but not sure it's WP:SIGCOV, 2. per WP:THESUN, The Sun is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability, 3. very short, mostly quotes 4. short, mostly quotes, 5. a Wordpress blog – is the author a "subject-matter expert"?, 6. very short, mostly quotes, 7. short, mostly quotes, 8. one sentence mentions him, 9. per WP:DAILYMAIL, The Daily Mail is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability. So, of the nine sources you listed, one might be SIGCOV. Based on these sources alone, I don't see that Nannetti's a clearly significiant figure in English lower league football. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per @Das osmnezz. Svartner (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, All many the sources from a variety of newspapers/news portals above are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider The Sun reliable for anything. Giant Snowman 08:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, Even besides that, my other points still stand. Put together, even without the "tabloid newspapers", all the other sources from the newspapers and news portals like Gianlucadimzarzio show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed your sources prior to my !vote and nothing has changed my mind since. Giant Snowman 10:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article fail WP:SIRS, and the sources listed above none are independent significal coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the heavily-interview-based sources noted above are enough for GNG. Tabloids and other deprecated sources obviously are unacceptable in BLPs and should be removed on-sight. JoelleJay (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun is most certainly not reliable for BLPs, which require high-quality sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my stance hasn't changed since my original source analysis at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Nanetti. I'm not convinced that any of the new sources in this discussion address the previous reasons for deletion. Those that offer more than trivial coverage are of questionable reliability as addressed several times above; The Sun, Daily Mail and Wordpress are not acceptable sources for BLPs and do not confer notability in any case. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Definitely enough to pass WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 21:42, 28 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2010s

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages and YouTube posts, none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid split? ...which is made of YouTube links. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:09, 23 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Rohr

AfDs for this article:

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

Couldn't find any reliable source on the subject. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Shinadamina (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Switzerland. Shinadamina (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Olympics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both sources currently in article appear to be reliable. One is international database which confirms her as 7x national champion, one a newspaper article about her which confirms her as national record-setter. PamD 07:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you really weren't able to find sources, Shinadamina, you should ask someone for help. Geschichte (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This can safely be kept due to even more sources having been added. Geschichte (talk) 08:46, 28 May 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. There seems to be a consensus to delete or draftify the article. Given that it is unlikely anybody will come around to improve the article (given the creator's indefinite block), my sense is that draftifying the article will just result in an abandoned draft. If the creator would like a copy of the article, I would be happy to provide it at any time. Malinaccier (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V. N. Srinivasa Rao

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

I do not think that this person meets the criteria for notability. I have been unable to find any reference to him other than the The Hindu article (https://web.archive.org/web/20240317044514/https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/the-lawyer-as-a-writer/article4683660.ece), which just effectively said it was nice to read. And cryptic metadata from library websites who happen to have the book (which seems to just be stanford and nyu https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/in00000071311 ) Mason (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Law, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he was pretty clearly a Madras barrister[76]. He's cited for appearances a number of times in the Madras Law Journal[77]. I'm not finding a lot more than that.
Are you questioning whether the Madras chief justices book exists? It is held by 8 WorldCat Participating libraries. The comment about cryptic metadata doesn't make sense. Oblivy (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe you are confusing notability and verifiability. Just because a source is hard to find doesn't mean it isn't reliable. See WP:PAYWALL. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I used my university's library to see if I could find anything else on the subject. My comment on cryptic meta data was that that was literally the only additional information I could find about him. I am not rejecting the source, for being difficult to get access to. My point was that there was literately nothing else when I searched other than that metadata. Typically for someone to meet notability they have to be covered by multiple sources. And, I can't find any support for independent coverage. The book in question wasn't even something he published. The book was edited by another person long after his death. Mason (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Will respond more at bottom. Oblivy (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage on the subject in the sources which are also poor. Subject does not meet basic criteria to be considered notable due to insignificant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If this criteria can be met, I would reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. Page was created by sockpuppet and is good for WP:G5 speedy deletion. RangersRus (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RangersRus, this article is not eligible for CSD G5. You've made this kind of comment several times which is a mistaken interpretation of G5. Please review WP:CSD carefully. G5 is for block evasion, not simply for being the work of a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I striked my comment. Is it right though that "when a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5"? WP:G5. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see an SPI on 21 March and this article was created 19 March. Blocks were in April. Perhaps I'm misreading or missing something? Oblivy (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 does not apply to the initial accounts that are blocked for socking if they are not evading a block at that point. It only applies to the articles created by accounts that come after the initial case/block.

In this case, both the accounts were used simultaneously and neither of them had an active block. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. Just FYI, a general comment for all AFDs, when an editor says "seems like" or "likely" or "appears to be" it means to me that the editor hasn't read or seen the sources and are basing their opinion on attributes like the title or the publisher. If that's the case, it's good not to have an absolutist opinion on what should happen with an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I am right down the middle on this. This guy seems to have been a prominent barrister, wrote a number of books including a treatise on administrative law. Maybe also wrote about temples (not sure if it's the same author).

But I've tried to find the sources, and don't find anything substantial about him except for the two links on the page, and as @Smasongarrison points out above that's a book by him, or perhaps comprising judgments curated by him. And one The Hindu journalist who liked his book.

Complaints about the origin of the article are, subject to further developments, misplaced. The author seems to have a particular interest[78] in Calamur.

If, on chance, there is someone out there who can improve this article let them do it. It will not be me. There's a conversation over unblocking going on so perhaps @Hölderlin2019 will live to edit another day. Oblivy (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be onboard with draftifying. If he were in my subject area, I'd inter-library loan the book. Maybe someone will be so motivated. Mason (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify, either one. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Hindu source is fine, but it's one source. I don't find anything in Gscholar or Books, there are some papers he's written on various aspects of the law, but these don't affect notability here. I think there could be more sourcing in the local language, but I can't locate any. Oaktree b (talk) 23:27, 6 June 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.

Salman Muqtadir

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources are trivial (included in a list of other youtubers) and non-independent. One significant coverage is about his investigation by the police. No other significant independent secondary source covering his popularity as a content creator. - AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Internet, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources cover the police investigating him. That is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Have any sources mentioned in previous discussions been examined?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia. While I couldn't find any clue in the former AFDs that I still hold deep breath of how it had survived two–three discussions. I am not going to base in any past whatsoever but here is the source analysis and final conclusion. source 1 is a primary source but it verifies the content as used in most of the articles like that per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Source 2 is good for sourcing but doesn't support the 'wife marriage'. source 3 is an obvious advert and interview making me suspect the credibility/reliability of source 2. Source 4 is unreliable, and source 5 looks like an advertorial unverifiable publication. Source 6, source 7, and source 8 contributes to a non notable controversy and I call it WP:BLP1E because the said event is not notable for a standalone article. [79] and [80] supports a non notable film and book, hence doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person Md Joni Hossain (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previously I nominated this article for Afd and my view still same. There is no WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved and more reliable sources are added, such as The Daily Star or Prothom Alo. Popular national reliable newspapers claim that Salman Muqtadir is a popular YouTuber and actor and there are a bunch of sources about him from reliable sites. Although some news are about his marriage or other things but they are published independently about him and declared him as YouTuber, influencer or actor. Therefore GNG has been able to establish. Ontor22 (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily star tag link you showed popped paid/sponsored articles [81], [82], [83], and [84]. They doesn't credibly means this article won't met notability later. See WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and know there isn't any amount of sources you add to a non notable person to be notable. On the aspect scene of YouTube, famous people are celebrities bur that doesn't mean try are notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News from The Daily Star are not paid or sponsored articles at all. Other news channels including Daily Star use disclaimers on sponsored articles but these are not. His marriage news appeared in multiple news channels.

See his marriage news from Prothom alo, Dhaka Tribune, The Business Standard.

Older articles about him also show his prominence.

See these article from Prothom Alo 1 2, Bangla Tribune, The Business Standard, Jagonews24

Salman Muktadir is not only YouTuber but also worked in various entertainment fields including television, stage performance which established his notability based on WP:ENT. Ontor22 (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is notable on YouTube as an influencer & content creator. but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia.--DelwarHossain (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is notable person. I agree with Ontor22. Yubrajhn (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD. There's close to a consensus to delete here, but not something I'm comfortable closing as myself given the promises I made to stay out of using my admin tools for tricky content issues.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen Large

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Joeykai (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A very easy keep. This biography clears GNG and NSPORTS by more than a lot of sports bios I've seen here. There is WP:SIGCOV in The Province, Baseball America, and Sportsnet, all of which are WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Sportsnet is owned by Rogers Communications, which also owns the Toronto Blue Jays, the organization that had Large at the time that article was written. Let'srun (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject meets WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable sources. JTtheOG (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I created this article as a redirect to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players, but I don't think Large is notable enough for a standalone article. The Baseball America reference is a general stat page that all minor league prospects have. In my opinion we only have 2 refs contributing towards notability in terms of SIGCOV (The Province & Sportsnet). If more SIGCOV is found I do think that the article should probably be kept. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Baseball America link is an article, not a stats page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject meets the WP:GNG because of independent WP:SIGCOV from Baseball America and The Province, which each provides in-depth coverage of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never made the majors, coverage is sparse and routine. Non-notable minor league baseball player. SportingFlyer T·C 02:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:07, 21 June 2024 (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 Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Neil Fitzwiliam

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

No significant coverage and not enough major roles. SL93 (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Television, and England. SL93 (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article that doesnt meet WP:NACTOR. No major roles too and unverified sources. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend keeping. Career cut short but a fine actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:8600:e920:494d:5551:3317:934a (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a database for actors. All the content should go to https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0280666/. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 18 June 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.

[1] Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2.

[2] Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meg Griffin}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josue Danny Ortiz Trophy}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Speech Prof}}