Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 23: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:01, 23 May 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 22	May 24 >

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 keep‎. Additioning sourcing has been found, as the nominator acknowledges, even though the article as written still needs serious rewriting for improvement. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agnostic theism

AfDs for this article:

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

In the eight years since the last deletion discussion not a single reliable source has been added to substantiate that this is a term in use in the field of theology. Moreover the page contains what looks like original research.

The two sentences in the lede that say "An agnostic theist believes in the existence of one or more gods, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god or gods that they believe in." are really just a basic definition of belief in its religious usage.

There are exactly three references on this page;

This reference Benn, Piers (December 1999). Hall, Ronald L. (ed.). "Some Uncertainties about Agnosticism". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 46 (3). Berlin and New York: Springer Verlag: 171–188. doi:10.1023/A:1003792325966 does not even mention the term agnostic theism.

This reference Seidner, Stanley S. (June 10, 2009) "A Trojan Horse: Logotherapeutic Transcendence and its Secular Implications for Theology doesn't seem to exist. It claims to be archived at the wayback machine but it returns a not found error. Regardless it is being used to cite a suppositional statement about epistemology generally and says nothing about the purported existence of agnostic theism as a concept.

This reference Weatherhead, Leslie (1972). The Christian Agnostic. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-0-687-06977-4 is being used to cite a statement about the specific characteristics of Christian agnosticism, which has it's own page.

Every other thing I could turn up in a web search is just sourced from this article verbatim. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Religion. Shellwood (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not a more general term for this? Christian agnosticism Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per nom, the topic of the article, being agnostic sects or elements of theist religions, could be written about, however it needs to come from RS and not be WP:Synth

Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some of the later uses in Google Scholar might be WP:CIRCULAR from people who learned about it from wikipedia but a search of Google Scholar prior to 2005 shows that this is used to describe viewpoints associated with Charles Darwin and T. H. Huxley. So it seems to pass WP:GNG on its own by association with highly notable people. Psychastes (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a good find! Unless some other sources turn up to support the stuff that is in the article at present it is going to pretty much need a complete rewrite. Morgan Leigh | Talk Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Conyo14 (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Psychastes. I'd rewrite the article if I had full access to those books too. Oh well. Conyo14 (talk) 04:14, 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. 16 editors have argued for deletion or "draftification," making a strong case that Wikipedia is not a news outlet. 17 editors have argued to keep the article as it has received substantial coverage beyond a run of the mill traffic accident. It seems the question is whether coverage of this is sustained---it has continued to receive some coverage since being relisted. Right now, I don't see consensus to keep or delete the article and I don't see a clearer consensus emerging in another week, so I am closing the discussion for now. Malinaccier (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Pune car crash

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

WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTNEWS, no significant coverage outside India and trivial commentary by a few politicians, possibly because it happened during the 2024 Indian general election. Borgenland (talk) 07:50, 24 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated in WP:N(E), "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) [...] are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." There's nothing about this event that indicates it has (or will have) enduring significance. Ethmostigmus (talk | contribs) 11:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will have enduring significance, we are seeing members of the current ruling party lauchpadding this case for the movement of judicial reform. 27.63.231.66 (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which coinciding with the general election, may as well be an electoral stunt that everyone will forget. Borgenland (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A significance in this case my friend is the fact of how it exposes the 2 different India. The minor in the case was let off in less than a day with nothing more than a month of social service and a puny essay to write on road accident on the account he is not an adult. The minor had been allowed inside 2 pubs and allowed to drive a porsche whichunder indian law can only be done once you are above 18. This makes this case have lasting value to the legal system. This is different from most crimes, accidents and is very notable due to the social media traction it gained. The only political or criminal connection comes as an MLA that is a member of indian parliament's son was in the car at the time and beat up by people at the venue of accident and the judicial system was exposed for its flaw in giving juvenile justice and the police did a bad job on this case. Killing of 2 IT proffesionals cannot be termed as a electoral stunt. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much a routine automobile accident, you could replace "Pune" with almost any city around the globe and the story would be the same. NOTNEWS Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not say so my dear friend for this accident has waters much deeper than most cases, it involves an MLA, a renowned builder and incompetency of a bribed police and hospital staff. The mom of the minor was reported to have swapped her blood making this veryyy different from an average automobile accident in las vegas etc. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The accident isn't notable, the investigation and allegations around it could be notable; that would be a different article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment makes no sense yet let me explain, This accident involves a builder's son crashing into 2 IT proffesionals at 3:30 AM at a speed of 200 km/h. Accused was handed to police and was giiven bail in less than a day without any notable punishment making this a notable accident. This article should not be deleted. Publichelper1011 (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Automobile accidents are very common, run of the mill incidents, sure, this incident may have gotten a tad bit more attention from politicians and the news, but at the end of the day, its frankly not really news. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This incident is different from your run of the mill accidents. This time it involves rich parents saving a brat from rightful justice as he was released in less than a day and was given a punishment of writing a "run of the mill" essay and was entitled to a few days of community service. An average murderer is remanded to 2 years of juvenile custody I must add dear dellow samoht. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has got significant coverage for now. It will take sometime to see if it meets WP:LASTING. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: And until then, relevant policies stipulate that the incident is not notable, and an article on it therefore cannot be sustained. If this is still in the news two years from now, I expect anyone still interested can recreate it at that time. Ravenswing 15:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID. Not the right time to decide notability of the subject that has already got enough coverage. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is incredibly MILL and probably didn't need the usual pointlessly rageful Republic/NDTV overcoverage which seems to be openly turning a simple vehicular death incident into exactly what they want. There won't be lasting coverage and it will likely end with private settlements and other justice currently happening now. Nate • (chatter) 22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its may 30 today 1 week after the incident and News show that minor was released in 17 hours, Hospital staff was bribed of 3 lakhs, the minor's father and grandfather in police custody. thier uncle has ragebaited the public, minors mom has faked blood reports by swapping her own blood for her childs reminding us of drishyam 2 and its amazing climax. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still getting coverage.[1] ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ reiterate a minimal casualty toll, non-notable victims (that the suspect was driving a Porsche is mere WP:TRIVIA) and no significant coverage outside India. Borgenland (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This above comment is posted by the same editor who also nominated this article for deletion.[2] Ratnahastin (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken for emphasis. That's right. You need to sign + timestamp all nominations, Borgenland, which already count as your preference to delete (!vote). El_C 07:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t notice that in the starter. Thanks! Borgenland (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, all good. El_C 07:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS and above in general. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons others have mentioned, if this is something that will become notable then it's WP:TOOSOON. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To say that an article should be deleted only because it concerns a recent incident is not sensible. Should wait for some weeks before doing AfD in these cases. Shankargb (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it's recent so much as it's a completely run of the mill drunk driving crash that killed two people. It quite literally is not notable. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... which was stated in the OP. What isn't sensible is to base an opinion at AfD based on cherrypicking only one element of the nomination. Ravenswing 17:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Run-of-the-mill car crash of which hundreds of the same scale occur every day. Just because something receives a small burst of news coverage does not mean it is notable. Curbon7 (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]
1 week after the incident, multiple arrest have been done in the case. The investigation for the mother is on way, bribe of 3 lakhs has been noted, police have said this is not an everyday car crash. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment no longer applies as the crash, while still fairly run-of-the-mill, has clearly has had some sort of broader impact. Curbon7 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUSTAINED etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill accident without the depth or extent of media coverage, such that it is not notable. The only thing setting it apart is the odd bail conditions, but that is insufficient to give it notability. Local Variable (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
local variabled is unable to see the news i assume PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem notable to me at all. These types of crashes occur every day. Sadustu Tau (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sadustu tau must catch up to recent news. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being vague about this is not going to change my argument. Sadustu Tau (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also my comment was made before more recent developments, which do seem to make it more notable than usual, however. Sadustu Tau (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While vehicle accidents are not automatically notable, this one is a different case. 2024 elections are not really relevant for this incident. This car crash has gained significant worldwide coverage, [3] contrary to this AfD nomination. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful over its sustainable coverage though. At this rate it is a mere eccentric news from abroad. Borgenland (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's basically a car crash, which will not generate sustained coverage. If it does indeed generate long-term coverage, it can be recreated. OhHaiMark (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The case is in no way trivial. Each day has only got the case more coverage in national media. The involvement of politicians in the case has nothing to do with the General election. The Porsche case is a national phenomenon in its own right. In addition, the case continues to cause arrests and interrogation of multiple individuals involved presently.

Appu (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While Such accidents are prevalent worldwide. However, this news has got India-wide coverage and is still getting coverage.

~~TNS~~ (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (1)The case has garnered significant media coverage with each & every update of the case being telecasted and covered across the board. Multiple national politicians have already made comments on it during the ongoing 2024 Indian General Elections. Therefore the subject is already notable enough for an independent page. The incident is of national coverage and has already brought the discussion on the Judiciary and Police executives to the forefront. (2) Being a recent news, as per WP:RAPID it is better to keep the page for now since there is no deadline to delete the page. Moreover, if its not WP:SUSTAINED in future, it can always be deleted. (3) For WP:TOOSOON multiple developments have already taken place in the investigation with reactions from many notable people. Therefore it is not too soon and sufficient time has already passed. EditorOnJob (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep the incident is clearly notable, and it passes Wikipedia:Notability (events). The incident is being covered all over India in reliable sources. Nominator's rationale "no significant coverage outside India is also inappropriate. Most of the murders, and missing persons cases (from all over the world) do not get international coverage, very few do. When the car crash took place, I thought the coverage was sensationalism, but later the decisions were cancelled, and now three generations are in custody source. The resulting coverage is now not sensationalism. According to this, (posted on 23, crash was on 19) it has grabbed national attention. The car crash has also reopened the investigation of a hit placed by Surndra Agarwal on a corporator through mafia/underworld don [4] Two doctors of state-run hospital were arrested source. These things do not happen with run of the mill car crashes. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED. If there are significant changes in popular media, legislation etc. because of this event over the next few years then we can recreate the article. Also to the nom, that "no significant coverage outside India" is definitely uncalled for. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment calls for deleting every case even those of deaths of head of state if they had no change to popular media, please use common sense brother lentical. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a poor choice of analogy comparing a dead world leader with a local councilman bhai. You do need to make your arguments have more sense. Borgenland (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a multinational news story. It is not about a car crash, but instead about social issues such as wealth avoiding legal consequences, bribery, rich young people using alcohol, the rights of common people versus rich, and others. This is not a routine report of an automobile collision, nor is it local, and the story is very likely to have ongoing updates because of further developments including the bribery accusations and accusations of corruption of doctors, police, and the courts. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not least because of the enormous BLP violations contained within, including claims of criminality and intent that have not been fully adjudicated and the publication of minors' and non-notable victims' names. If the topic eventually does receive sustained attention, it can easily be refunded, but right now it is doing far more harm to victims' families in addition to contributing to sensationalist non-NPOV political reporting. JoelleJay (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is still viral on social media and spokesperson of multiple politcal parties, and news channel still report the incident and cover it about 10 days after the reported rage break in social media. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This incident rather exposed a number of doctors and other people involved due to the public pressure which isn't a normal occurrence if it hadn't been public pressure the incident would have been like any normal accident out there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.89.170 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The incident has recieved notable media coverage along with multiple independent sources covering the topic over a prolonged period. The Indian General elections have ended, the media coverage should be observed over the next few days in order to access whether it was a politcally motivated topic or a notable topic of interest. Keep it for the time being and continue the discussion for the a few more days. Xoocit (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still an active discussion ongoing here. I tagged the article as lacking NPOV but I'm also baffled by editors claiming this article is about " a routine automobile accident" as this article has been greatly expanded since its nomination. What matters is not whether or not editors believe a car crash is just news but whether reliable source establish this subject's notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID It has got significant coverage till date. The question whether it is WP:LASTING will be only known in due course. The trial has to take place .Hence for now it is keep.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is not a random car crash but a unique one. It is still getting enough coverage and this coverage is going to happen for a longer period of time. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This incident has caused a stir in India like no other car crash has. Deeper themes of the exploitation of the poor by the rich with money (rich kid killed the poor, but almost got away with it by bribing with money) exist, and it also highlights the injustices that India’s current legal/police system allows. Coverage by many major Indian news providers still continues, alongside social media discussions by citizens.JayTea2910 (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and news coverage alone does not demonstrate notability. Come back after the news coverage ends and there are articles explaining how significant the fallout was. Creating articles for events before that happens is irresponsible. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appallingly written, but clearly extremely notable and will continue to be extremely notable in highlighting preferential treatment of the rich in India's justice system. So yes, contrary to claims above it's already very clear that this will have enduring significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. WP:BLPCRIME advises that editors should seriously consider not creating articles about living people accused of a crime, before they have been convicted, as they are presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law. It is too soon to have this article. Allow the judicial process to play out first. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron Dewe: Hi. this article isn't a BLP, it is about a car crash and aftermath. The article doesn't even name the accused perp. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran: True, the article is not a BLP but WP:BLPCRIME applies to all articles. The same consideration is set out at WP:PERPETRATOR, too. The article is about a fatal vehicle collision in which two motorcyclist have died. In most countries that makes it a double homicide, which is a crime, not just a "car" crash. Several other people who assisted the perpetrator are named in the article and they are also accused of committing crimes. WP:BLPCRIME applies to them too. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is obviously biased but the incident has pretty wide coverage across India, and there appears to have been ramifications for social discourse in India about corruption, rule of law and wealth inequality stemming directly from this incident.Cyali (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm all for shaming the rich and powerfully connected, but I'm not sure that has been the consensus since at least 2007. Argue amongst yourselves, but please ping me if there has been a new precedent created by keeping this article. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per comments above. Notable and unique event, with masive media coverage. Also create a couple of redirects to the page for wider accessibility. Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is an update, and significant coverage in reliable source on the next day of general elections. Signifying that previous coverage was not sensationalism. It has retained sustained coverage. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:33, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Notebook

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

No sources, and Google gives me "No results found for "atomic notebook" "luhmannis"."[5] Fram (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Zettelkasten, which appears to be a practically identical concept. It is very difficult to find instances of "atomic notebook" being used in this way, so I am unsure whether a redirect is suitable. On the other hand, "atomic note" seems to be a more common term. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a very unlikely search term for this as well, judging from Google. It looks like the article is just a way to get traffic to or attention for a company, [6]. Fram (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from what I just reverted elsewhere, this is a novel concept created by the article creator1[7]. Fram (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEOLOGISM with no usage in reliable sources. Leaving aside the neologism in the title, the subject that the article attempts to name and describe is a kind of data model for a personal knowledge base: see Personal knowledge base § Data models, where granularity is the word used for the (degree of the) atomic quality in the neologism "Atomic Notebook". If such a data model requires more coverage in Wikipedia, it would be best to begin by expanding that coverage in the article Personal knowledge base. A notebook is just one metaphor for such a data model; as Helpful Raccoon mentioned above, a card file (in German, Zettelkasten) is another metaphor for such a data model. But no matter which metaphor you choose (and here's a long list of such metaphors for example), what you're essentially describing here is a data model for a personal knowledge base. Biogeographist (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Atomic Note Taking is a more modern (and more used) term for the concept Zettelkasten, so happy to redirect there instead. Also not happy with the implication that I'm trying to drive traffic for corporate sponsorship, that was never my intention. Стиво (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason at all to redirect this, it hasn't received any outside attention and isn't discussed at the target (and shouldn't be included there for the same reason). Fram (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a redirect isn't appropriate. It needs to be deleted. Note the lack of any supporting reliable sources for the article creator's claim that it's a widely used term. Biogeographist (talk) 13:19, 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mordella auropubescens

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

This beetle species is absent from any up-to-date database I can access, and does not show up in any literature searches. The GBIF entry appears to have been removed for unknown reasons some time after the article was created. Barring clear and recent presence in the records, I think this is not a currently accepted taxon. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this may be a genus-level issue. Of the first ten species listed at Mordella, one has been reassigned within the genus, two to a different genus, and four have been deleted from GBIF and are otherwise undetectable. Ouch. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like Mordella is a wastebin taxa that needs a lot of rework. I concur this appears to be a species that is no longer accepted. With no information more than what is on the article, I can't support maintaining this article. UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES since this looks like it's not a valid species name. If anyone can dig into the sources for the other species name changes, maybe that might give a clue as to what's going on with the entire genus, but it sounds like it may be defunct. KoA (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something is definitely up with that. CoL lists no species within the genus, but offers half a dozen synonymized instances, so at the very least there have been a lot of reassignments. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ray, 1936, is the author of only a few valid names, all of them in the genus Mordellistena. I can't find any confirmation of the existence of this particular name even as a synonym, but it isn't impossible that it was published and has since vanished from online sources. That said, until and unless it can be confirmed, I would support deletion. Dyanega (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to [8] the original description is in "Arb. morph. tax. Ent. 3, 215". Plantdrew (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You may be right, but IRMNG seems to accept the species. See https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11516213 Note that the words after Environment (~~marine~~, ~~brackish~~) are struck out. We have an article on Tomoxioda auropubescens Ermisch, 1950, which is also a beetle, and which shares the same specific epithet as Mordella auropubescens. That's not enough evidence that Tomoxioda auropubescens is the new name for Mordella auropubescens, but it's a strong hint that someone who knows more about beetles than I do might want to explore. If this is a simple change of genus, the good article should have an explanation of that added, and the bad article could be replaced with a redirect to the good name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IRMNG added it because GBIF added it. But then GBIF deleted it, and I don't think IRMNG deletes it when GBIF does, so its presence in IRMNG doesn't hold much weight. And T. auropubesens was also deleted at GBIF, so is probably not long for the AFD route... - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've found the original description. [9] The holotype is from Brazil. I have not yet found the text of Ermisch's description of T. auropubescens but it was apparently published in "Die Gattungen der Mordelliden der Welt. Entomologische Blätter 45-46: 34-92" with a type from Sumatra, so apparently unrelated. Choess (talk) 05:26, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Villowo

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

No evidence of any notability, could not find independent sources with significant attention for the sport. Fram (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and India. Fram (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. The page does not provide reliable sources showing that the sport meets the general notability guideline. RangersRus (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable localised sport. AA (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, I found nothing that would make this subject meet WP:GNG. It requires multiple independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage to establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 17:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Poorly referenced and specific to a crazy sport no corresponding article on another wiki. Svartner (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Lacks coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:50, 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!} 05:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Rick

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:44, 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abubakar Muhammad Zakaria

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. - AlbeitPK (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article clearly meets the WP:ACADEMIC policy 4 no criteria. Because, some books written by him are taught in the university of Bangladesh, See here. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 09:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent and reliable sources are available. Also, several academic books are taught in university.Md Joni Hossain (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy-based arguments would be appreciated. The fact that books written by the article subject are used in university courses is not a valid argument to Keep. We delete plenty of articles on academics who have written books used in coursework somewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not able to find reliable sources in English that show his academic profile, I assume they must exist in non-English languages so would appreciate it if someone could offer them for consideration. Currently there are claims on the page but, as far as I see, not much which can be verified per WP:V. JMWt (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: "Dr Abu Bakar Muhammad Zakaria - Curriculum Vitae" see here. 202.134.9.128 (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, a self-published CV is not suitable for WP:V JMWt (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His tafsir is the only bengali tafsir, published and approved by Saudi government printed by King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Quran https://quranenc.com/en/browse/bengali_zakaria and his book "Shirk fil Qadim wal Hadis is a famous book, many scholars quoted from it including Ali al-Sallabi, his Book Hindusiat wa tasur is the most famous Islamic academic book on Hinduism in Arab world after the book "Fusulun fi Adianil Hind" written by Ziaur Rahman Azmi, and he wrote the book as his thesis in Madinah University under the supervision of Ziaur Rahman Azmi and followed him, he is an official bengali representative of Saudi religious propagation ministry who supervise the bengali section of www.islamhouse.com/bn and he has also entry in shamila library https://shamela.ws/author/1532 and there is a possibilty that he may be going to be an emeritus professor of Islamic University, Kushtia by university authority as his age is now 65.202.134.11.243 (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is WP:GNG . Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the WP:GNG requires significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. We haven't had anything offered which meets this standard in any language, so we can't WP:V the basics. Those who want to !keep cam of course rewrite thr page as/when they find acceptable sources. JMWt (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt Are you want to say that Offline Source is not acceptable? You should remain in WP:good Faith. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 08:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which offline source meets the standards of the GNG? I am remaining to assume Good Faith in the part of other contributors and don’t really see why you are suggesting otherwise. If there is an offline source that shows the importance of this person, which they’ve not written themselves, that I’ve missed then I’m happy to correct myself. JMWt (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt I mention my opinion in first comment. [Please see here]. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 16:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Well, as others have already stated, being the author of university textbooks is not regarded as suitable notability for en.wiki

I'm not saying that you are not offering an opinion in good faith, but I am saying that this is not a policy reason for !keep JMWt (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 see here, his book about hinduism is highly praised in Zad TV by Muhammad al-Munajjid and the presenter also telephoned the publisher and requested hum to translate the book in English. His book Hindusiat wa Tasur was highly praised by Abdullah bin Salam al-Batati in the program "Al-Khajanah" of Zad TV owned by Muhammad Al-Munajjid and wished to be translated in English giving the book highly importance as a detailed work on Hinduism from the Islamic perspective.[10] His book Ash-Shirk fil-Qadim Wal Hadith has been partially translated into Indonesian by Abu Umamah Arif Hidayatullah as "Syirik pada Zaman Dahulu dan Sekarang".[11][12] Besides, the same translator also translated some of his other works into Indonesian language.[13] - 202.134.14.139 (talk) 16:28, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Lourdes Church, Visuvasampatti

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

No evidence that this local church passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources cited are affiliated with the church or diocese and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to support notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 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!} 05:41, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infant Jesus Church, Selliampatti

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

No evidence that this local church passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources cited are affiliated with the church or diocese and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to support notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 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!} 05:40, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current yeomanry units of the British Army

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

The scope of this list is the same as the scope of two sections of Yeomanry. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 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!} 05:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - unnecessary and duplicates content. Not actually even sure the R is needed. JMWt (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even merging is an option as it's just a copy of Yeomanry. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 08:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content fork, and repetition, of Yeomanry but with 45x less average views. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:55, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stc Bahrain

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/VIVA Bahrain

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

Fails NORG; article lists standard business activities, nothing noteworthy. BEFORE shows no substantial RS. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:35, 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!} 05:38, 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!} 22:05, 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. I did not see much sourced material to merge, but I am happy to provide a copy of the deleted material if anybody (Gjs238) is interested in using it. Malinaccier (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Syrians

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

This isn’t really a topic here. Specifically there is nothing here to suggest that there is a current or recent community of Syrians of Italian heritage. The article discusses Romans of Syrian origins (off topic), then the arrival of Livorno Jews (should be merged into History of the Jews in Syria, and the rest is anecdote and a section copy-pasted from Italy–Syria relations to fill out the article and make it look like an actual topic. Mccapra (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Syria and Italy. Mccapra (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed a similar page, which is Italians in Lebanon, the name is different yes, but the page literally doesn’t define anything. Most sources aren’t accessible anymore and the source I can access is the Vinivest 2011? I know this isn’t the time to compare. But, what should the page by about if not Romans of Syrian descent and the history of both countries and the arrivals of the Italian Jews to Syria? I see no reason for all this, and suggest removing it. 2001:8F8:1473:5EF2:848C:A013:291F:7463 (talk) 00:13, 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!} 05:48, 30 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!} 03:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge arrival of Livorno Jews into History of the Jews in Syria then Delete as per nom. Gjs238 (talk) 12:15, 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 no consensus‎. Strong arguments on both sides, with no rough consensus. Owen× ☎ 13:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Orange Bowl broadcasters

(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 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. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Orange Bowl is one of the most important bowl games, see [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]Esolo5002 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: You're practically speaking very subjectively when you state that this is another case of something to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans, especially without accompanying evidence to backup such a general statement. It almost sounds like your your saying that something like this shouldn't be around because you personally don't care, heard much of, or understand or have much reverence college football or its history and background. Just because it may not personally appeal to you doesn't instantly mean that there's otherwise, little merit in something like this. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I said appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans, I meant this list, not the sport as a whole. Did you pay attention to that? Of course not. As an non-American, we all know how popular the sport is to you Americans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NB: This user (BornonJune8) has a history of exclusively targeting my AfD with a keep vote, despite how weak they are. This was because I nominated one of his article for AfD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you pay attention to that? Of course not.
Please keep it civil. Zanahary (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources dating back to the 1950s on television are being added at this very moment. And more will soon come to help bolster the WP:RS needs. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source is about an announcment of an analyst, the other is an announcment of TV coverage. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:18, 13 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!} 05:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, there are at least 70 different references, and almost 60 just recently added in regards to not only CBS' earliest television coverage of the Orange Bowl, but their coverage in the 1990s. There also are now references/sources that have been added for NBC's television coverage from the 1960s on through the early 1990s and Fox's coverage during the late 2000s. Sources for ABC's during the late '90s and first portion of the 2000s and ESPN's coverage from the 2010s on through the present day just need to added as well as sources for the radio coverage. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I had a check: some focuses heavily on the games with the coverage being a side piece, some are WP:PRIMARY, some are announcments or talk about the announcers, some are 404. Like Wikipedia, you know that IMDB does not count as a reliable source. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list was almost entirely unsourced when it was nominated at AfD. In just a couple days of effort, some 70 sources (of varying quality) have been added. Combine the ongoing sourcing effort with the fact that this was for nearly a century one of the big three college football games (Rose, Orange, Sugar), I lean to keeping. Cbl62 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that added sources can be further reviewed. Also, please no personal comments about contributors and accusations about motivations that are obviously unsupported. Focus on policy, sources and notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expect the article to improve though. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reviewed the sources and I'll chalk it up to this, IMDb is not a reliable source, press releases are WP:ROUTINE mentions, WP:NYPOST, and finally, there are some sources that are reliable, but do not provide the significant coverage that are necessary to sustain such a grouping. Therefore, it is within the topic of WP:LISTN, that my !vote remains. Conyo14 (talk) 07:06, 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. Similar to the prior discussion in 2012. Malinaccier (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing has substantially improved, and the issue is still that this a list of trivia. Indeed, having looked up Loose Cannons by Graeme Donald, which was cited in the last discussion, I find that its subtitle is "101 Myths, Mishaps, And Misadventures Of Military History". In other words, it is a book of military trivia, and I note that Mental Floss is cited in the article. The whole premise is questionable, particularly in these days of mostly undeclared warfare, and the inclusion criteria don't match the members. Mangoe (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopaedic. Lorstaking (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well-sourced and (IMO) an important enough topic to keep. This isn't a policy rationale, but we built encyclopedias to be useful and I enjoyed reading it, and was sad to see it up for deletion. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 21:48, 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!} 03:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous AFD discussion; a renaming of the article (and) a clear definition of scope would still be helpful. But these "ceremonial unofficial peace treaties" do seem to be discussed enough to be in a list article. Walsh90210 (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonably well sourced article that asserts its claim to notability even if the topic is a bit silly. This may be a situation where we could delete the article by invoking the rules disfavoring lists, but we shouldn't do it as the article is, as @The Quirky Kitty points out, enjoyable to read and as @Walsh90210 says the category gets enough discussion as a category to satisfy WP:NLIST.
The deletion rationale is hard to discern from the nomination. However, (a) the objection that the Donald book has trivia in its title doesn't make it a non-reliable source, and (b) the idea that wars are largely undeclared today is a non sequitur and perhaps strengthens the case since it becomes more of a closed-membership list of declarations of war without a corresponding cessation.
The article suffers from lack of hard inclusion criteria. I'm not convinced that the great Berwick-upon-Tweed vs. Russia war or even Carthage v Rome constitutes an extension of war rather than possible grounds to claim the war was extended, but that could be sorted out later. Oblivy (talk) 07:58, 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!} 05:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rylo Huncho

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

Coverage only concerns his suicide. See WP:BLP1E. TolWol (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was not meeting musical notability while alive, his death would not make him more notable. No coverage found outside of his death, not meeting notability guidelines Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable for being a musician. Notable for the manner of his death, which is already yesterday's news and certainly doesn't merit its own Wikipedia page. --Jkaharper (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a notable person. --JaneciaTaylor (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia editors when it comds to demeaning a kid who accidentally shot himself: 2605:59C8:2653:8B10:EBBB:1D42:4291:808A (talk) 23:42, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gayathri Vivekanandan

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

BLP that has already been moved into and back out of draftspace so bringing here for consensus. The subject is a successful business leader but that is not the basis for a Wikipedia article. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Computing, and India. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Recently, the draft was declined by me. Upon my further check, I couldn’t find anything other than interviews or her own words in articles. These sources are not in-depth and can’t establish notability. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 04:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had performed an BEFORE prior to S0091's draftification, and believe it very likely that the subject is not able to meet BASIC. With the history, I am also convinced this article is likely an undisclosed advertisement. Honestly I'd call it borderline A7, but its probably easier to let this run and deal witb future creations via G4. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See related AfD (same article creator, MeltPees) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Speech Prof —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page on this living person is poorly sourced with no significant coverage to consider the subject notable to warrant a page on. RangersRus (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same article creator and same issues, I'm unable to locate sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. I was unable to find any non-trivial coverage of the subject via reliable sources. JSFarman (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find enough to establish notability with no significant coverage of the subject. Fails GNG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:12, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Pomfret

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

Clearly and blatantly promotional. Reads like a resume. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Finance, Law, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A few obituaries (not about this person) are all I find; this reads like a Linkedin biography. Nothing notable, simply a working lawyer. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not notable as a lawyer. If notable at all, this would be as a gay-catholic author. And then the article would need work. That part was already implied above. Rather than taking a clear position, providing my partial findings to those commenting after me. gidonb (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Christianity. gidonb (talk) 19:49, 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. ✗plicit 04:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McLintock

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

Fails WP:GNG and all coverage seems to be in passing. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 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 delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of photo stitching software

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

Everything is either unsourced or reliant exclusively on primary sources discussing individual pieces of software to paint a picture that no source explicitly makes AKA performing improper synthesis. Additionally inherently violates WP:NOTDIR. Compare Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software, which I find convincing to this day and appears to be just as relevant. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is full of WP:SYNTH. Orientls (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Should be called list of photo stitching software, it listing valid information about things on the list in the various columns, with some columns that perhaps shouldn't be there. But the vast majority of things in this list article do not have any articles for them. Category:Photo stitching software shows 17 total. Those could easily fit in Image_stitching#Software. Dream Focus 21:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ultimately, Wikipedia is a website that combines features of many other types of websites; did Diderot's Encyclopédie have a list of LOST episodes? Of course not, but we do. Yes, yes, WP:OMGWTFBBQ, I'm well acquainted with all of the policies in question; but at the end of the day these policies exist for a reason, and the reason is to create a website that meaningfully informs its readers. For sixteen years this article has done that, quite well. If we look at policies like WP:NOT you can see that they were not intended to simply purge articles on the basis of not being "serious enough" (i.e. WP:NOTCHANGELOG was specifically written to include articles consisting of Android and Chrome version histories). If this is cruft, then God bless cruft. jp×g 🗯️ 11:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion about sourcing. What did anything you wrote have anything to do with sourcing? HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a discussion about whether an article titled "comparison of photo stitching software" should exist on the English Wikipedia.

What kind of "sourcing" do you think we need for the claim that Adobe Lightroom is proprietary and not open-source? Do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? What basis is there to think that?
The topic of comparing photo-stitching software is obviously notable and many people care about it. Here are some articles about it that I found after searching for about ten seconds:
Coleman, Alex (September 21, 2023). "Best Panorama Stitching Software for Photography". Photography Life.

"Best panorama stitching software: Retouching Forum: Digital Photography Review". www.dpreview.com.

"What is the best photo stitching software to use in 2024? | Skylum Blog". skylum.com.

"8 Best Photo Stitching Software for Making Panoramas [2024]". www.movavi.com.

"10 Best Photo Stitching Software in 2024 (Updated)". expertphotography.com. November 8, 2021.

"Top Photo Stitching Software for Breathtaking Panoramas". Cole's Classroom. December 7, 2020.

"9 Best Photo Stitching Software To Create Panorama Images". carlcheo.com.
People who are on the Internet looking for information (i.e. the people that this website actually exists to serve) are obviously interested in this subject, and it is not only possible but very easy for us to maintain high-quality well-sourced information for them. We do not need a long-form thinkpiece from The Atlantic to do this: we just need to cite reliable information about photo-stitching software. Adobe's website is a reasonable citation for how much Adobe's software costs. The thing being demanded here -- that somebody find a New York Times article or something listing how much Adobe Lightroom subscriptions cost, and then cite that instead of Adobe's website -- is unnecessary, unreasonable and likely impossible.
The idea that we should destroy this information is both inexplicable and infuriating, and when people have told me they no longer enjoy using Wikipedia as a resource, about eight times out of ten it happened after watching large amounts of neutral reliably-sourced material disappear forever because somebody found it aesthetically distasteful. jp×g 🗯️ 00:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't think there's much of a discussion to be had. Most of the sources you listed are either not credible or don't make any meaningful comparison between software offerings, as they are essentially listings. It's notability is not obvious at all to me, and that's nothing to say of the original research in the original article, and to say that we only need to find citations for one small portion of the article is a very rose-tinted view. I'm sorry to hear that you're infuriated by this AfD, but this article should be deleted. It's not about aesthetics, it's about policy. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is about policy -- WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF are policy. Again: do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? Why?

Of course Adobe's website is not a reliable source for "Lightroom is the best and easiest-to-use software ever", but it's a reliable source for "Lightroom has a stitching mode for fisheye lenses", which is indeed what we're citing to it.

These sources -- again, they are from the first page of a Web search, I could certainly find more if I actually went to the library -- are obviously not canonical listings of the best photo stitching software packages, they're evidence of this being a notable subject that people have a consistent and strong interest in. If you really want evidence that evaluating and comparing types of panoramic stitching software is a subject that's been given proper scholarly treatment by serious people with graduate degrees, I can also do a quick publication search.
Mehta, Jalpa D.; Bhirud, S. G. (May 31, 2011). Pise, S. J. (ed.). "Image stitching techniques". Springer India. pp. 74–80. doi:10.1007/978-81-8489-989-4_13 – via Springer Link.

Montabone, Sebastian; Pohlmann, Frank; MacDonald, Brian; Andres, Clay; Anglin, Steve; Beckner, Mark; Buckingham, Ewan; Cornell, Gary; Gennick, Jonathan; Hassell, Jonathan; Lowman, Michelle; Moodie, Matthew; Parkes, Duncan; Pepper, Jeffrey; Pundick, Douglas; Renow-Clarke, Ben; Shakeshaft, Dominic; Wade, Matt; Welsh, Tom; Markham, Jim; Moore, Ralph, eds. (May 31, 2009). Beginning Digital Image Processing: Using Free Tools for Photographers. Apress. pp. 205–234. doi:10.1007/978-1-4302-2842-4_9 – via Springer Link.

Benzar, Julia (May 31, 2012). "Hardware and Software for Panoramic Photography". www.theseus.fi.

https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/752941/dunguyen_thesis_final.pdf?sequence=2

Montabone, Sebastian (July 27, 2010). "Beginning Digital Image Processing: Using Free Tools for Photographers". Apress – via Amazon.

Soler Cubero, Oscar (September 2, 2011). "Image Stitching" – via upcommons.upc.edu. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

https://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:jiafm&volume=36&issue=1&article=015

Gillmore, John; Dodd, Bucky (June 27, 2011). "Panoramic Virtual Environments for eLearning Applications". Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). pp. 951–956 – via www.learntechlib.org.

Song, Huaibo; Yang, Chenghai; Zhang, Jian; Hoffmann, Wesley C.; He, Dongjian; Thomasson, J. Alex (March 31, 2016). "Comparison of mosaicking techniques for airborne images from consumer-grade cameras". Journal of Applied Remote Sensing. 10 (1): 016030. doi:10.1117/1.JRS.10.016030 – via www.spiedigitallibrary.org.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/39670392.pdf

Weitoish, Daniel (January 1, 2012). "From the Canopy: An Arborist's Perspective" (58) – via repository.upenn.edu. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

jp×g 🗯️ 05:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles, ironically, describe how to stitch images without the use of the software programs listed in the article. Those sources might look authoritative, but they only cover image stitching as a general technique, for which we already have an article for. In fact, the existence of these sources are a reason to delete this article, because it shows that people tend to avoid buying expensive subscriptions for photo stitching programs in favor of DIY solutions. And again, that's nothing to say of the mountains of original research and synthesis in the original article. Tunneling on one specific use of one primary source misses the bigger picture that the nominator and two other delete votes have painted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The original research could be hypothetically cleaned up, but we'd need reliable sources that make meaningful comparisons between photo stitching software in order to preserve the article. I've found a couple self-published articles, but nothing that I would consider reliable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:46, 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!} 05:41, 30 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!} 03:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Image_stitching#Software: until better sourcing is found. Owen× ☎ 11:34, 13 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, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are suitable sources for this, but they simply haven't been applied properly in the article. Any comparison made by an editor is basically not valid; the correct approach is to summarize the comparisons made by the reliable sources, and to explain the criteria used by those sources. Tables (with columns each cited to one of the sources) would likely be the best way to proceed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be effectively WP:TNTing, and thus argue the current content here should be deleted, right? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My concern here is that this type of article is completely beyond the scope of Wikipedia. One, detailed listings of technical capabilities of different software packages are best suited for PC Magazine or similar publications. Two, it focuses on one aspect of photo editing - image stitching. Then we would have detailed articles on "Comparison of color-correction software", "Comparison of photo restoration software", "Comparison of image animation software", etc.
Given that any software platform is constantly being revised this would also become a high-maintenance article. Imagine, if in 2001, if we had an article titled "Comparison of dial-up internet services". What relevance would detailed comparison charts of CompuServe, Prodigy, and America Online have for today? Blue Riband► 23:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Somebody obviously did a lot of work compiling all this data but I'm seeing primary sources: product home pages, product descriptions, tutorials, and product descriptions. WiIkipedia is not a direcory nor is it a guidebook. So for those three reasons my vote is Delete.Blue Riband► 15:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much work has been done here but it is simply not encyclopaedic enough. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:10, 19 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 History of Alabama Crimson Tide football. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1918 Alabama Crimson Tide football team

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

Alabama did not field a team in 1918, I don't see why an article is necessary when there is no such article for the 1898 season in which Alabama also did not field a team. Gazingo (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to History of Alabama Crimson Tide football: Subject does not meet the WP:NSEASONS, per previous consensus we don't keep articles for teams which didn't play any games. Let'srun (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd (at the same time it was sent to AFD) so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alabama is one of the most important college football programs. Not sure where else this info would go.~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History of Alabama Crimson Tide football already says the team cancelled the season due to World War 1. There aren't (to my knowledge) articles for any other teams that didn't play any games. Gazingo (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that [[19]] and [[20]] were deleted for the same rationale as is being presented here. Let'srun (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Patriarca12: @Jweiss11: The two of you are the biggest contributors to this article. Thoughts on its notability? Cbl62 (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to History of Alabama Crimson Tide football and/or 1919 Alabama Crimson Tide football team. There's certainly detail here should should be kept on Wikipeda. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What details in particular do you think need to be merged? History of Alabama Crimson Tide football already mentions that the team suspended play during the war. Let'srun (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the details in article, like Noojin being appointed head coach, Moore as captain, the schedule that was never played. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of which can be covered in History of Alabama Crimson Tide football. Changing my vote to merge there. Let'srun (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per Jweiss11. Cbl62 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors divided between those arguing to Keep versus those advocating a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of Alabama Crimson Tide football per the above as an WP:ATD. This standalone article only serves to mislead readers into thinking a season existed for this school, when it didn't. --MuZemike 11:29, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Breen (human rights activist)

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

Contested PROD for individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. WP:BEFORE search does not turn up significant coverage. Existing article is a WP:REFBOMB of sources that fail to demonstrate notability. Sources 1/23, 6, 7/9/11, 15 and 25 are non-independent press releases or official bios, 2, 3 and 19 are trivial mentions in long lists; 4, 10, 14, 21 and 28 32 are passing mentions in coverage of other topics, 5 and 8, 27, 33 and 34 are WP:INTERVIEWS and thus primary sources; 13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29, 30 and 31 are self-authored material by the subject. 24 does not mention the subject. Only 12 might qualify as SIGCOV, but we need multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 9 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!} 03:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: The editor who created this article also created Human Rights First which is Breen's organization. Only edits theyve made. And the HRF in their username stands for Human Rights First- right? Appears to be undisclosed COI. Should I put my concerns on the talk page of Human Rights First? Looking at the related pages here we could also be looking at WP:SOCK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaskedSinger (talk • contribs) 05:11, 17 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My strong delete wasn't enough? ;) MaskedSinger (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC

Delete: It does appear there's connected editing here but just on the merits, IMHO, this subject fails GNG, ANYBIO, and any secondary guideline with which I'm familiar. It reads like a business card for his services. I agree with the source analysis by the nominator as well. BusterD (talk) 21:06, 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 delete‎. BusterD (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary L. Coleman

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. PROD was contested with sources from IMDB and of relatives being added, which do not establish notability. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Pennsylvania. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 9 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, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not exactly sure how to close a previously PROD'd article with a discussion with no participation at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we can’t build an article on album credits and I don’t see in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His website and the various music streaming sites, are all I can find. I'd agree with the PROD decision, this is not meeting musical notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 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 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!} 02:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capital City Connection

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

Completely unsourced, and tagged as such since 2012 without ever having any sources added, article about a minor local public access television program. As always, television shows are not automatically notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability, so nothing here is "inherently" notable without sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Alabama. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 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!} 03:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:38, 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. There were weak arguments coming from both the Keep and Delete perspectives, hence the No consensus closure. But I'm persuaded by comments by Reywas92. It's important not to consider this list article in isolation and compare it to regular articles but to consider whether this articlee is just as valid and well-constructed as similar list articles on other subjects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of long marriages

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

This article fails WP:NLIST and WP:SELCRIT. I can't find reliable sources that track the list's topic (the longest marriages of all time) nor can I find sources that set 80 years as an appropriate lower bound. It also likely fails WP:LISTPEOPLE's two criteria.

This article, then under the title "List of people with the longest marriages", was previously successfully nominated for deletion along similar lines. Despite an attempt to shift the scope and an ultimate restoration of the article remarkably soon after a DRV, I don't think it has succeeded. It's still essentially a list of longest marriages. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This is basically original research. BoldGnome (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of this is original research? It doesn't copy a list someone else has made, but there is nothing here that draws an unsupported conclusion or is unverified synthesis. It's quite well objectively sourced. Reywas92^Talk 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Trivial at best. Sadustu Tau (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I came to this article due to a meme screenshot about it on Instagram, so it at least has proven relevancy even if it fails to adhere to other guidelines. -Louisana (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is "relevancy" of the article a criterion? If you mean notability, it's about the topic, not the article, and isn't determined by Instagram memes. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will just note for now that it's perfectly normal to set a threshold for inclusion that keeps the list to a reasonable size. No source is needed to justify the 80-year threshold. I mean, there's nothing at List of largest power stations in the United States that sets 1,500 MW "as an appropriate lower bound". Reywas92^Talk 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, article is useful to have and is well sourced as it has 191 sources. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at WP:ITSUSEFUL. Sources must discuss the concept of long marriages otherwise it is WP:OR. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what OR means... Nothing in this article was just made up or synthesized by WP editors, it's entirely besed on sources. You can argue that compiling information from all these sources isn't notable because most of them are about individual marriages, many just being routine local news recognizing a couple rather than of the broader topic, but I see no original research or unsupported analysis. Reywas92^Talk 02:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does appear to meet SELCRIT (unambiguous, objective, and reliably sourced). Objectively, 80 years is a long time to be married, let alone alive, and as such is a reasonable boundary to regulate size. The fact that these marriages are even being reported solely due to their length trumps the OR argument;the 80 number rightly keeps the list trimmed and not excessivly long and unnavigatable. Per Rewas92, Common sense and consensus should agree with that assessment; similar to Paris being the capital of France. I'm not seeing it as original research; it definitely appears well-sourced and backed up.DrewieStewie (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep, we do have sources remarking how unusually long certain marriages can be out of the marriages in a given large region, e.g. longest-married Dutch couple, longest-married Utahn couple, longest-married British couple, so on. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:06, 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!} 03:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my problem with this type of content is that it is only generated by collating trivia from many sources. Sources which have not all been examined as to their reliability. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I was going to say "keep" until I read the related article's deletion rationale. If editors can't "find reliable sources that track the list's topic" then it can't have a list. There is also nothing special for the gives 80 year cut-off. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, lots and lots and lots of lists have an arbitrary cut-off for size and User:Knowledgekid87's last sentence has no basis in guidelines or precedent as a justification for deletion. List of largest stars has a arbitrary cut off in the first table of 700 solar radii; List of largest snakes has an arbitrary cut-off of 50 pounds; I contribute to List of photovoltaic power stations, whose arbitrary cut-off has increased from 200 to 300 to 400 MW as more items are added. There's also no requirement in guidelines or precendent that a topic must be tracked in a different reliable source. None of the sources for List of the verified shortest people are a tracker that presents the exact same information, nor are any in List of people with the most children, List of oldest living state leaders, the FL List of largest cruise ships or List of heaviest land mammals, List of longest-serving mayors in the United States etc. etc. "Collating trivia from many sources" is simply not forbidden. I don't love this list which is why I didn't vote when I made comments above, but I also don't like bad arguments. Reywas92^Talk 19:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Reywas92: Couple thoughts. First, if you don't love the list and want to articulate an argument for deletion outside SELCRIT, I'm all ears. Second, I'm drafting off SELCRIT's line "Selection criteria [...] should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" (my emphasis). I don't work with lists often and am not familiar with the history behind that wording, but with some additional searching it seems like that line could be ambiguous. You can find other editors wrestling with it in this discussion. If my reading of the line doesn't reflect how things actually work in practice, let's go make it less ambiguous. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long marriages are of enduring historical significance and of great importance just like other lists that are mentioned above are as well. User:Suncheon Boy

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadarou Sare

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

The article subject is a non-notable entrepreneur and PhD student. I could not find any reliable sources containing significant coverage of the subject. None of the sources currently cited in the article establish notability: [21] and [22] are interviews in trade publications that read like puff pieces. [23] does not have any clear editorial standards, is based on an interview, and also reads like a puff piece. [24] is a bio and abstract for a talk he gave at a seminar. [25] is an interview with the organizers of the same seminar. [26] is the subject's company's website. [27] is an advertising website. [28] is a slideshow about a project that the subject worked on. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Astronomy, Engineering, Spaceflight, Africa, Ivory Coast, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the deletion discussion above, most links given are primary or simple confirmation of employment/biographical info. The sourcing doesn't pass RS guidelines and there isn't much else I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be speedy deleted per G5 as the article creator has been blocked as a sock of User:Daniel Martin77. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a blog post or LinkedIn. Haruka Amaranth 03:55, 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 redirect‎ to List of largest stars. ✗plicit 00:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UW Aquilae

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

Does not meet WP:NASTRO and therefore not WP:GNG; hardly any coverage in reliable sources. Article likely only exists on the basis of it being a very large star. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 09:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CU Note: The main author was a sock - it would have been a candidate for G5 deletion had Ozzie10aaaa not done a fair bit of tidying up on the article - their thoughts on its retention or otherwise would probably be relevant. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep there are sources that indicate its notable per [29],--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? All the ones I could find are catalogues which do not establish notability. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 15:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did find a couple for studies that make mention of "UW Aql", but no more than a few sentences. I'm on the fence about this one. Praemonitus (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest known stars, where it is mentioned. This is fairly an obscure star, it doesn't has even a Henry Draper or HIP designation despite its modest brightness of 8.8. I was planning to redirect it to List of stars in Aquila, but it fails the criteria of inclusion for these lists.

InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't redirect to List of largest known stars as that page is a redirect. At least when I edit Wikipedia, redirects show up as a different color font (green links) rather than articles (blue links).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then redirect to List of largest stars because the name changed recently. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to List of largest stars which is the target of the redirect. Mangoe (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest stars. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 11:29, 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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WKUW-LD

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

Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Another LPTV station with a history of carrying only national services with almost certainly no significant coverage, even in its pre-DTV America/HC2/Innovate days. It's yet another nominal survivor of a 2023 bulk nomination of many DTV America/HC2/Innovate station articles. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 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 merge‎ to Speed limit#Maximum speed limits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

85th percentile speed

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

I do not think this concept merits its own article, and believe it is adequately covered at Speed limit#Maximum speed limits, which actually goes more into depth than this standalone article (which is nothing more than a dictionary definition). This article should be redirected to that section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Speed limit#Maximum speed limits per nom. Stubby tidbit of information more at home in an article section. BD2412 T 01:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Speed limit#Maximum speed limits: Agree that this fails DICDEF. The citations here can be merged. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that article should be expanded, but deletion is not cleanup. I will work to expand the stub soon and welcome help from others.

The 85th percentile speed is a policy decision that was perhaps in the past considered a minor component of Speed limit#Maximum speed limits. However it is now being covered by reliable sources as a large component of Transportation safety in the United States, with criticism directed solely at the 85th percentile rule (as opposed to high speed limits in general) and laws being written to eliminate the rule (but not high speed limits). The rule has significant coverage and meets GNG.

Subject deserves its own article to track the development of 85th percentile rule usage and decline, as covered by reliable sources. Just like Parking mandates is a different article from Parking.

PK-WIKI (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a civil engineer, I agree it needs its own article. 71.115.83.120 (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a civil engineer, I disagree. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:39, 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!} 03:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Traffic engineering (transportation) - per nom, this is a stubby DICDEF; however, merging into traffic engineering (transportation) seems better than putting this in Speed limit. If kept, it should be retitled "85th percentile speed rule" or the like. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've now expanded the stub past DICDEF, including an academic paper dedicated to this subject and recent Federal Highway Administration lobbying specifically on this rule. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess article changes. It's also become more complicated now that there are two Merge target article suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Speed limit or grow. Traffic engineering (transportation) seems like the wrong merge target; it doesn't actually mention speed limits at all right now. It should at least link to speed limit; setting speed limits is one of the tasks of traffic engineering. I was going to suggest merging into Speed limit#Maximum speed limits as a good outcome, preferable to deletion, as this is an important safety topic.

If the article isn't going to get any bigger than it is now, merging would be appropriate. If we're going to start adding maps that track where in the world this rule is used, and follow along with reform efforts, a standalone article is appropriate. I don't mind merging and then re-splitting later if the section in question gets too long.

I'll also note that a third article covers the same topic, V85 speed. That should be merged into this article if kept, or its merge target if not. -- Beland (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Speed limit per voorts. Speed limit is a suitable merge target; in essence this information is a partial answer to the question "how are speed limits chosen?" which is a logical topic for that article. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:16, 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 no consensus‎. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aamna Malick

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

This actress does not fulfill the criteria WP:ACTOR as I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows NOR does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. A significant portion of the sources referenced lack reliability . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 8 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!} 22:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per WP:BASIC, [30],[31],[32]

[33], [34] Otbest (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otbest, I'm curious how a user who just began editing 2 days ago is already participating in AfDs. BTW, the references you provided aren't even RS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sourcing seems to be weak (mainly tabloids), but it looks like she may have some notable television credits?-KH-1 (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- KH-1, No. Only minor roles. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: some of her numerous roles in notable productions look significant enough for her to pass WP:NACTOR -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But I don't see any. If that had been the case, she would have definitely received some press coverage, at least some ROTM coverage at a minimum. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:29, 2 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!} 05:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage consists either of tabloid coverage (see WP:SBST) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs; no significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:07, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Plummer (musician)

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

Article about a musician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only properly verifiable claim of notability here is that he existed -- it asserts that he had hit singles, but fails to provide any verification of where they were "hits" (spoiler alert, not in RPM). And for "referencing", it just contextlessly bulletpoints a list of mostly primary source websites that aren't support for notability, without footnoting anything in the article body to any of them.
On a WP:BEFORE search, further, I didn't find enough coverage to salvage this -- apart from one concert review in The Globe and Mail on the occasion of him playing the El Mocambo in 1980, I otherwise only get local coverage in Saskatoon, glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him in any sense, and tangential hits for other unrelated Brian Plummers (such as Bill Pullman's character in The Equalizer).
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sourcing than he has. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it looks very much as though this was written as a WP:NOTMEMORIAL... the only other edit the article creator has made to Wikipedia is to add some information about Jack Hazebroek to the article about the Rolling Stones Mobile Studio, and Hazebroek's name also appears in this article, so I imagine it was written as a tribute to Mr. Plummer, having worked with him. Richard3120 (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:57, 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!} 05:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero coverage about this person found, other than the usual download/streaming sites. Not meeting musical notability, tagged for a decade to be improved with sources, none added... Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The supplied "references" list is very questionable. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 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. ✗plicit 00:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Camden, New Jersey

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

Looks like a copy/paste from Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture Gjs238 (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a student project but it doesn't appear to contribute much new information or sources. The main article's section could use a trim, but not in duplication like this so I'm not sure what the point is. I'd recommend a redirect or draftify and that the student consult with their teacher and Wikipedia Expert about proper editing and WP:SPLIT procedures. Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a stand-alone topic. It should be incorporated into the Camden, New Jersey article. Ira Leviton (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. There is no policy argument given, no analysis of sources, to dictate deletion. There is plenty of possible additional material. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously every city has sources on its culture, but please compare this page and Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture. This is a sloppy copy and paste job that resulted in duplication and little unique content. Of course additional material could be added here or to Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture, but it should be a proper split with summary style, not what this is. WP:REDUNDANT and WP:DUPLICATE are policy arguments not to keep the page. Reywas92^Talk 20:16, 14 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!} 23:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blatant unnecessary copy/paste from Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture Gjs238 (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete strictly inferior to Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture; if kept as a split of that article there would need to be a new copy-paste from the city article to replace the article contents, which are less thorough and contain non-encyclopedic phrases removed from the main article. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is a copy/paste from and redundant with Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture. Gjs238 (talk) 14:05, 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 keep‎. Given sources provided. It would have helped if the nominator and other participants had taken the time to evaluate them after they were provided and the discussion relisted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sept Days

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

No SIGCOV. Northern Moonlight 23:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northern Moonlight 23:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per completely absent significant coverage --BoraVoro (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Guo, Yanxi 郭妍汐; Liu, Jinpeng 刘金鹏 (2016-10-14). "七天•10周年：加拿大七天文化传媒2006-2016" [Sept Days·10th Anniversary: Canadian Sept Days Cultural Media 2006–2016]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.
  The article notes: "《七天》报创刊于2006年7月7日。刊头为中英法三语《Sept七天 Days》, 以体现《七天》生活在加拿大多元文化的氛围之中，又由于《七天》是在官方语言为法语的加拿大魁北克省注册，因此法语优先。《七天》报为周报，一周七天，其含义是关注和涵盖生活的每一天。"
  From Google Translate: ""Sept Days" newspaper was founded on 7 July 2006. The masthead is "Sept Days" in Chinese, English and French to reflect that "Sept Days" lives in a multicultural atmosphere in Canada. And because "Sept Days" is registered in the Canadian province of Quebec, where the official language is French, French is given priority. "Sept Days" is a weekly newspaper, seven days a week, which means to pay attention to and cover every day of life."
  The article notes: "2007年，七天派记者奔赴阿富汗战场，对有加拿大军队参加的这场战争的性质和意义进行了零距离的观察和报道，七天记者胡宪成为海外华文媒体战地记者第一人；"
  From Google Translate: "In 2007, Sept Days sent reporters to the battlefield in Afghanistan to conduct close-up observations and reports on the nature and significance of the war involving Canadian troops. Sept Days reporter Hu Xian became the first overseas Chinese-language media war correspondent;"
2. Cong, Ling 葱岭 (2021-09-06). "加拿大蒙城，一位金融人的华丽变身" [Montreal, Canada, a financial man's gorgeous transformation]. Xinmin Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.
  The article notes: "这是一家活跃在加拿大法语城市蒙特利尔的华文媒体，创办16年，累计出版了上千期的中法文报纸杂志和8部书籍。它是第一个向阿富汗派出战地记者的海外华文媒体，也是两次受邀随加拿大总理访华的当地华文媒体。它创办读者俱乐部，举办了几十场各类文化、体育、商务活动，成了当地华人的联系纽带和精神家园。"
  From Google Translate: "This is a Chinese-language media active in Montreal, a French-speaking city in Canada. It was founded 16 years ago and has published thousands of issues of Chinese and French newspapers and magazines and 8 books. It is the first overseas Chinese-language media to send war correspondents to Afghanistan, and it is also the local Chinese-language media twice invited to visit China with the Canadian Prime Minister. It established readers’ clubs and held dozens of cultural, sports, and business activities of various types, becoming a link and spiritual home for local Chinese."
  The article notes: "2006年，尹灵再次辞职，创办华文报纸《七天》。那年，她40岁。"
  From Google Translate: "In 2006, Yin Ling resigned again and founded the Chinese newspaper "Sept Days". That year, she was 40 years old."
  The article notes: "《七天》从一开始就摒弃了很多海外中文报纸翻译本地新闻、复制粘贴的做法，坚持自己采访、自己撰稿，一下子吸引了大批读者。"
  From Google Translate: "From the beginning, "Sept Days" abandoned many overseas Chinese newspapers' practices of translating local news and copying and pasting. It insisted on doing its own interviews and writing its own articles, and it suddenly attracted a large number of readers."
3. Xu, Chang-an 徐长安 (2016-10-29). "加拿大《七天》传媒发布法文报《La Connexion》" [Canada's "Sept Days" media releases French newspaper "La Connexion"] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "蒙特利尔华文媒体《七天》传媒10月28日晚在当地举行晚宴，庆祝该报创立10周年。该报新创办的法文报纸《La Connexion》也正式发布。加拿大总理多为《七天》10周年庆祝活动发来贺信。特鲁多说，值此《七天》传媒10周年之际，"
  From Google Translate: "Montreal Chinese-language media "Sept Days" held a dinner locally on the evening of October 28 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the newspaper's founding. The newspaper's new French-language newspaper "La Connexion" was also officially launched. The Prime Minister of Canada has sent congratulatory messages to celebrate the 10th anniversary of "Sept Days". Trudeau said that on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of "Sept Days" media,"
4. Li, Dan 李丹 (2016-11-10). "加拿大七天传媒成立十周年庆典在蒙特利尔举行" [The 10th anniversary celebration of Sept Days in Canada was held in Montreal]. 美中时报 [Sino-US Times] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.
  The article notes: "《七天》是世界各国领导人访问加拿大时的必邀华文媒体。中国国务院总理李克强在2016年9月23日访问加拿大时，亦特邀《七天》参与了华文媒体座谈会。"
  From Google Translate: ""Sept Days" is the Chinese-language media that must be invited when world leaders visit Canada. When Chinese Premier Li Keqiang visited Canada on September 23, 2016, he specially invited "Seven Days" to participate in a Chinese media symposium."
5. "New voices, expanding horizons. When Sept Days sent Montreal journalist Xian Hu to Afghanistan last December, the weekly Chinese newspaper was not only making a statement to its competitors in the community here, but to mainstream newspapers as well". The Gazette. 2008-02-23. Archived from the original on 2012-11-05. Retrieved 2024-05-22.
  The article notes: "Sept Days competes with five other Chinese newspapers in a market of no more than 100,000 potential readers. Its three full-time journalists and five freelancers focus on a mix of local, international and entertainment news. Ten thousand copies are printed of each issue and, according to Yin, 50,000 people read the paper each week. The paper is free of charge, and advertising and investments from the paper's board of directors keep it afloat, but Yin admits that it has yet to break even. Sending Hu to Afghanistan was an unusual step for an ethnic newspaper, but it has earned Sept Days a certain notoriety in the Chinese community. Last month, the paper sponsored a lecture by Hu on her experience in Kabul, and this month, it will send another reporter overseas to cover the presidential election in Taiwan."
6. Lum, Zi-Ann; Taylor-Vaisey, Nick; Duggan, Kyle (2023-06-23). "Fixer upper on the Hill". Politico. Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.
  The article notes: "Conservative Sen. Victor Oh was in Montreal earlier this month to drum up enthusiasm for Saturday’s rally on the Hill. His visit was covered by Sept Days, a Montreal Chinese-language publisher with links to the Chinese Community Party. Sept Days was among a handful of Canadian organizations that attended the Chinese government’s United Front Work Department media forum training in 2019, according to a recent report by Alliance Canada Hong Kong."
7. Yu, Ruidong 余瑞冬 (2018-06-24). "《加拿大华人精英录》一书在蒙特利尔首发" [The book "A Record of Canadian Chinese Elites" was launched in Montreal] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22 – via Phoenix Television.
  The article notes: "由加拿大七天传媒出版社出版的《加拿大华人精英录》一书于当地时间6月22日晚在蒙特利尔首发，正式与读者见面。"
  From Google Translate: "The book "Canadian Chinese Elites" published by Canada's Seven Days Media Publishing House was first launched in Montreal on the evening of June 22, local time, and officially met with readers."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sept Days (Chinese: 七天) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to assess identified sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and I have also semi'ed it to stop the disruption. I don't involve a relist as Involved, but if someone else does feel free to revisit Star Mississippi 03:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Article was in an abysmal state when it was first nominated for deletion, but has been expanded significantly by Cunard and the coverage outlined above easily demonstrates notability. No mention of any WP:BEFORE search. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:21, 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 redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WKUT-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Yet another DTV America/HC2/Innovate station that has only ever carried national services without much if any significant coverage, even before their ownership. Like many of the others, this artilcle is another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination from 2023. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Adventist schools in the Philippines

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

Contested prod. Prod reason states "This list is made up of mostly schools that are not notable and also there are no references it has been like this from day one that it was created". As I am conducting a procedural AfD, I am neutral on the matter. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Religion, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of Adventist universities in the Philippines. As far as sourcing goes, I wouldn't know what is available in reliability, but I figured reducing the list to be just the colleges and universities would be more suitable to WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the majority of Seventh-day Adventist schools in the Philippines are not notable and never will be. And we do not need a separate list for Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities in the Philippines, that is why we have List of Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities. Catfurball (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Before a rename is considered, you have to put forth a good, policy-based argument on why this article should be Kept. A rename can be discussed after an AFD if this article is Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is where a category is much more useful than a long list of which most schools are not notable. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 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!} 05:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single-level

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

WP:PARTIAL only. fgnievinski (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is not a proper disambiguation page because the terms just share the word "single-level" in common, not their respective nouns. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PARTIAL says everything it needs to BrigadierG (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some form - could redirect somewhere useful. JoshuaAuble (talk) 21:11, 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!} 05:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Goss (rugby union)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of transactional stuff from his time in England, but struggling to see enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:43, 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 speedy keep‎ per WP:SK #1 no valid rationale and other recent noms. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Life Crustacean

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

too many problems Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 01:50, 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 redirect‎ to List of South Africa national rugby sevens players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sampie Mastriet

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most I found were a few sentences here. Possible redirect targets include List of South Africa national rugby sevens players and List of South Africa national under-20 rugby union team players. JTtheOG (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of South Africa national rugby sevens players A fair bit of coverage, a lot that actually names him, but probably not enough for a WP:GNG pass. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:41, 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 Speedy Keep‎. WP:SK #1 - no valid reason for deletion provided. (non-admin closure) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie the Tuna

AfDs for this article:

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

sorry charlie but your article is being deleted due to legal problems Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 01:39, 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 merge‎ to Mount Elizabeth Hospital. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Elizabeth Novena Hospital

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

Marked for notability concerns since 2022. The coverage I found were like incidents involving nurses but nothing indepth to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and Singapore. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mount Elizabeth Hospital: parent subject, if there is no improvement to the article. – robertsky (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mount Elizabeth Hospital. This appears to be a 2nd campus of the same hospital. Meets WP:GNG, and in the context of the parent article also meets WP:NORG/WP:NHOSPITAL. Does not appear to have a substantial coverage independently for a standalone article. Bgv. (talk) 22:40, 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 redirect‎ to Weigel Broadcasting#Television stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WZDS-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weigel Broadcasting#Television stations: a newer (2010s/2020s-started) LPTV carrying only national services is highly unlikely to attain the requisite significant coverage, so this redirect as an alternative to deletion is the best we can do. (Note that had Weigel not bought this station, it would have been an equally non-notable DTV America/HC2/Innovate station…) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree BMarGlines (talk) 12:27, 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. Owen× ☎ 22:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenized Middle East

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

"Hellenized Middle East" is a made-up term which is not used in scholarship on the Hellenistic Period (a search of google books shows a few uses referring to Greek presence in the Near East, but without any consistency [35]: one book on Gandharan Buddhism, a couple on the Middle Ages, one on Cavafy in the 19th century. This is not a term used with any consistency in scholarship). The article consists of a WP:OR map, which collapses Ashokan India into the Hellenistic world and a bunch of material largely mirrored from Hellenistic Period. Furius (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Egypt, Pakistan, Middle East, India, and Greece. Skynxnex (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:SYNTH. Aearthrise (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the main issue here is not the title, but the duplication of material that is already covered elsewhere. The topic itself appears to be legitimate, whatever title it's given, and unless there's a specific title that is generally applied to the topic, any reasonably descriptive title would do. There may well be better titles, but that would not be a justification for deletion: it would justify moving the article to another title. Replacing a map with a more accurate one would not be an argument for deletion. So the only remaining issue seems to be duplication of existing material in other articles.

It sounds as though most of this is covered under "Hellenistic Period", in which case a "technical merge" might be in order. By that I mean a basic review to make sure that any useful and verifiable material from here is included there or at other appropriate articles. If so, then simply indicate that the article was merged there, and then change this title into a redirect, as a plausible search formulation. There may also be some details here that ought to be mentioned in other articles, and aren't yet, in which case a full merge may be done. But even if everything is already fully covered, it would technically be a merge as long as one makes sure of that before changing this into a redirect. P Aculeius (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CFORK. Poor page with poor and unverifiable sources that do not help identify implications that is explicitly stated by the source. The creator of the page inserted opinion by using content from other pages and used it in a circular bit of logic. Page is WP:SYNTH. RangersRus (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:SYNTH.

As for the fork, I am working add more content into the Hellenistic regions section; the list came from Partition of Babylon, because it gave all of the regions that persisted throughout the cultural area's lifetime. Aearthrise (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the "Fork" information borrowed from the Partition of Babylon page, which pertained to the first rulers of the regions, and now the Hellenistic regions list section only includes the region names and important cultural tidbits from those regions. Aearthrise (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strange title, bizarre geographic scope, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH content, WP:CFORK.
- Scholarship on ancient history uses "Near East" rather than "Middle East"; both terms are of course eurocentric, with "Middle East" reflecting Western European strategic concerns during the last years of the Ottoman Empire. Describing much of the area under Seleucid control in the hellenistic period as "hellenised" begs the question of whether that impact was more than superficial and brief.
- The inclusion of all South Asia is bizarre; the Maurya empire is not usually described as hellenised (and the map shows it extending strangely east and south). Mapping Greece as hellenised is silly.
- The text largely consists of an editor opining, without benefit of sources, on who became the ruler of which area after the death of Alexander, largely with no more substance than that. Any reader wanting to know about the area during the hellenistic period will be disappointed and frustrated; they will already be better served by Diadochi for successors and by Hellenistic period, including Hellenistic period#Hellenistic Near East, for the regions. NebY (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.
  
  Further, you make an argument about "eurocentricity", but you forget that this is English wikipedia and Middle East is the English term for these areas. Aversion to the word "Middle East" is simply your opinion, and not a serious point.
  
  You also say that the map is bizarre because it includes South Asia and Greece; I argue the map is a good illustration of the area that generated cultural syncretism, especially for the allied and interinfluential nature of the region.
  
  For the last point, I circle you back to the first sentence of this response. Aearthrise (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: someone seems to be working hard to improve the article currently, and the title has been changed, perhaps in response to what has been said so far here. Perhaps these edits will make a difference to whether this article should be kept or merged (I still don't think deletion is the correct means of dealing with a content fork, if it still is one after the current revision process is done). It may be a good idea to get Aearthrise's take on the content fork issue, and whether he or she has a plan to resolve that, or any of the other remaining issues mentioned in this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Said editor has been adding material about citizenship in the Roman Empire and the Umayyad Caliphate. It's bizarre synth. Furius (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aearthrise was notified about this discussion; I'm not sure why they've not engaged directly... Furius (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You only notified me 7 days after you created this thread. Aearthrise (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this once to get editors' assessment of article changes. But if there are editors who are opposed to Deletion, please suggest a simple alternative outcome that a closer can carry out. AFD discussions are not resolved by complicated rewriting scenarios. The options are limited with AFD closures and they are decided by consensus so if you are arguing for something complicated, you need to win over your fellow editors to your point-of-view which usually requires simplification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not entirely off (the argument that the Hellenistic period extends to the Arab conquests for the Roman East is certainly not new), but currently it reads like a hodgepodge of factoids without a clear plan in evidence, and there are a lot of red flags of bizarre factual inaccuracies (the map, Alexander's conquests 'in the 2nd century BC', the 'state of Judaea', to name a few glaring ones) that lead me to question whether the authors have the expertise required to do this correctly. I am thus also for delete; this should first be properly developed in someone's sandbox, beginning with gathering the relevant literature, before a move to mainspace.Constantine ✍ 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Your gripe here is that you believe that this article doesn't have a plan, and claim three "red flags" one being the map showing the region of cultural syncretism. Why is the map a red flag? It easily shows the area of the original regions in the Hellenistic Middle East, and the two cultural influences that made the most impact in the early days of the area, this is the area described by Ashoka of culturally allied lands.
- For your other two "flags", it's a simple typo of 2nd century with "3rd" century BC, and writing the word "state of Judea" instead of "province of Judea". I implore you to give a real example of "factual inaccuracies" instead of claiming them from superficial semantics.
- You also say that this article is a hodgepodge of factoids, but the evidence follows the theme of the Hellenistic cultural area and its unique cultural aspects; the section with the partition of Partition of Babylon region list can be refined, as right now it deals with the people who began ruling these regions and has some added information on the kingdoms, and Greco Buddhism. Aearthrise (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The problem with the map is that it comes from a source for territories mentioned by Asoka as having been conquered by the dharma, but is being used to illustrate "the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC". These are two very different things and there are no sources to support using the image for the latter. The idea that Ashokan India was part of the Hellenistic world (or the Middle East for that matter) is not mainstream. Furius (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You're making two different points in this paragraph about the map:
  One that Ashoka's declaration of whom he considers allies and peers in dharma, naming rulers of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, is not the same as a declaration of "cultural syncretism". I argue Ashoka's declaration is exactly evidence of the intercultural relation of Greeks and Indians of the time:
  
  Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism (2008), L. K. Singh, page 34:
  
  The Edicts of Ashoka, which talk of friendly relations, give names of both Antiochus of the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemy III of Egypt. But the fame of the Mauryan Empire was widespread from the time that Ashoka's grandfather Chandragupta Maurya met Seleucus Nicator, the founder of the Seleucid Dynasty, and engineered their celebrated peace.
  
  Hinduism: Challenges | Interaction with Buddhism, Jainism and The Greeks (2024), Ashok Mishra, page 221:
  
  A mission was sent to the Hellenistic Kingdoms in the West, including Syria, Egypt, Greece. According to ancient sources, Ashoka sent a delegation of Buddhist monks to these regions, where they engaged in dialogues with the local people and established Buddhist communities.
  
  And Man Created God: A History of the World at the Time of Jesus (2013), Selina O'Grady, page 416:
  
  According to many scholars, it was the coming together of Indian and Greek culture that created the very conditions that would give birth to Mahayana Buddhism. It was here that Indian abstraction met Greek individualism to create a more personal, emotional religion that in its turn would profoundly influence the mergence of Christianity. This Indo-Greek syncretism was reflected in the great statues of Guatama Buddha that the Kushan rulers erected throughout their growing Empire.
  
  Your second point, "The idea that Ashokan India was part of the Hellenistic world (or the Middle East for that matter) is not mainstream", is not claimed by the map at all; the map simply describes the area of cultural syncretism. There clearly had been a long intercultural influence of the Mauryans with Hellenistic States since Chandragupta married Princess Helena of the Seleucid dynasty.
  
  Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination (2023), Rajendra Prasad, page 46:
  
  Seleucus married his daughter Helena to Chandragupta Maurya. After Chandragupta, his son Bindusura became the ruler of the Mauryan Empire. During the reign of Bindusura, Antiochus, the ruler of Syria, sent dry figs, wine to Bindusura. Deimachus, an ambassador of Antiochus I was at the court of Bindusara. Ptolemy II Philadelphus sent an ambassador named Dynosis to he court of Bindusara.
  
  Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism (2008), L. K. Singh, page 36:
  
  A "marital alliance" had been concluded between Seleucus Nicator and Ashoka's grandfather Chandragupta Maurya in 303 BC... This was a common practice for formalizing alliances in the Hellenistic world. There is thus a possibility that Ashoka was partly of Hellenic descent, if Chandragupta's son, Bindusura, was the object of the marriage. This remains a hypothesis as there are no known more detailed descriptions of the exact nature of the marital alliance, although this is quite symptomatic of the generally good relationship between the Hellenistic world and Ashoka.
Aearthrise (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The leap you make from "allies and peers in the dharma" to cultural syncretism is WP:SYNTH. None of your cited sources link the two things. O'Grady does talk about Indo-Greek syncretism, but she's talking about the Kushans. The caption does not mention what the map was actually drawn to depict at all. On your second point, depicting all these places in a single colour, together, without any borders presents them as a united region. Furius (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeated claim of "synth" is totally unfounded, not only from earlier comments, but this one too. It's obvious from art, architecture, written records, that the Indian and Greek cultures influenced each other. That is the literal definition of "syncretism", and to deny so is to play a game of ignorance. Beyond that, to say O'Grady is referring to the Kushans is a total misreading of the quote; she mentions the Kushans only as an example of the presence of the aforementioned syncretism in the great statues of Gautama Buddha they erected.

Furthermore, you say the map's caption does not mention what the map was drawn to depict; So what? You act like repurposing content for use in another topic is something wrong. Regardless of its origins, it's a clean map that helps illustrate the idea of the culturally allied region, which is the point of Ashoka's declaration of who he considers Dharmic peers.

You say "On your second point". No, this was your second point Furius, and I responded to it by showing that your previous claim about the nature of the map was incorrect and your own invention: neither the map nor the caption claimed anything you said.

Now, because you don't want to admit your error, you're changing the argument to that because the map represents the three named regions as one unit, it makes the map wrong. If I showed a map of World War II depicting the European allies as one unit (being the cleanest map found for use) to illustrate the early British contribution to the war, and wrote "map of Britain, France, and Poland in alliance, 1939" would you also say it is wrong and "Synth" because it includes a single color, borderless map of the allied countries? I wouldn't.

As a closing comment: just today, I have encountered another map that has colors and borders. I've changed the map; so now, you don't even have this point to dispute. All of your points, the ones that led you to make this article deletion request, have been defeated. Aearthrise (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good that you've changed the map. You say "It's obvious from art, architecture, written records, that the Indian and Greek cultures influenced each other." That's true.* That is why we have articles on Greco-Buddhism and Indo-Greek art (and Buddhist influences on Christianity on the limits of that syncretism). It remains very unclear what this article claims to cover that isn't already covered by those articles and by Hellenistic period. It remains unclear why there should be an article on cultural syncretism in the Hellenistic period that covers the Middle East (and India) but not Europe or the Mediterranean (as Hellenistic period does). It remains the case that "Hellenistic Middle East" is not a term that exists with a consistent meaning in scholarship (yes, google books shows that it does appear, but those citations are all using it to refer to different things from one another) Furius (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are reaching for straws and now making arguments from ignorance. You repeat the same silly phrasing "it remains" three times:

"It remains very unclear what this article claims to cover that isn't already covered by those articles and by Hellenistic period."

You are saying that because the Hellenistic period article exists, we should delete this article. Following your logic, we should also delete "Roman Africans" because the article shares points with Africa (Roman province) and Romanization (cultural). That's stupid.

"It remains unclear why there should be an article on cultural syncretism in the Hellenistic period that covers the Middle East (and India) but not Europe or the Mediterranean (as Hellenistic period does)."

You are saying this article should be deleted because it covers the specific Hellenistic Middle East area rather than including Europe or the Mediterranean. That's also stupid.

"It remains the case that "Hellenistic Middle East" is not a term that exists with a consistent meaning in scholarship (yes, google books shows that it does appear, but those citations are all using it to refer to different things from one another)."

You have not proven this point at all, and are just claiming it without providing any evidence. Clearly from the work on this article, this region is definable and has certain traits: it's an area of syncretism between Greek and Middle Eastern cultures. The area changed over time, in traits and even religion, and this article reflects that.

If you want to disprove it, show what citations you're referring to that aren't consistent with the definition. Aearthrise (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* It's moot, since the map has been changed, but what I've found synthetic is not the claim that these two cultures influenced one another in Central Asia, but that that syncretism between Greeks and India was characteristic of the Middle East as a whole, which is what a map captioned "Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC" implies; there's very limited evidence for Greco-Indian syncretism in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia (Ashoka sent some embassies, which none of the recipients considered important enough to record). Furius (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's moot, then why are you arguing? Are you full of hot air and want to let it out?

"...but what I've found synthetic is not the claim that these two cultures influenced one another in Central Asia, but that that syncretism between Greeks and India was characteristic of the Middle East as a whole,Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC" implies; there's very limited evidence for Greco-Indian syncretism in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia (Ashoka sent some embassies, which none of the recipients considered important enough to record)"

This is another stupid comment, and not based in reality. There is nowhere in the phrasing "Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC" that says Indo-Greek culture was a characteristic of the Middle East as a whole. All it says, is that these regions are in syncretism, i.e. they influence each other. You're extrapolation that the caption implies everywhere in the Middle East had Indo-Greek culture is incorrect, and just another one of your misreadings. Aearthrise (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a lot of these delete comments come from people *BEFORE* this page received so much content, namely Mccapra, RangersRus, and NebY; I was only notified 7 whole days after the creation of this deletion request. Furius originally claimed that Hellenized Middle East is a "made-up term not used in scholarship", although his search clearly showed more than 15 different citations of the term; nevertheless I changed the title to the more common "Hellenistic Middle East", with a plethora of citations. Furius also claims a lot of the material comes from Hellenistic period article, which is completely false. The majority of the content comes from books; the section with information from another article is the region list from the Partition of Babylon page and includes its citations. The map doesn't collapse the Hellenistic world into Ashoka's India, rather it illustrates the region of allied cultural syncretism that helped generate the Hellenistic Middle East. Aearthrise (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and copy to a sandbox, per Constantine. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Give a reason why instead of just saying "per Constantine", as his argument hinges on three "red flags": the map, and then two gripes about a typo and a word choice. Aearthrise (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about you read WP:BLUDGEON. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, are you claiming that my request for you to give an elaborated reason is "bludgeoning" you? Aearthrise (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have commented on every delete mentioned here. That is WP:BLUDGEON.

Kurt Behrendt; Pia Brancaccio (2011). Gandharan Buddhism Archaeology, Art, and Texts. UBC Press. p. 10. Doesn't mention Mithraism, Greco-Buddhism, etc. WP:OR

Paul Cartledge (2006). Thermopylae The Battle That Changed the World. ABRAMS, Incorporated. p. 5. Doesn't support, "Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, Persepolis in Persia, Bactra in Bactria (Afghanistan), and Sirkap in India became important cultural centers of Hellenistic culture". WP:OR

Ethel E. Ewing, William Oscar Emil Oesterley, James Talboys Wheeler are not WP:RS. "Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination" and travel guides are not considered WP:RS. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims of "WP:OR" are nothing more than nitpicks on the lede of the article; you are saying that simply mentioning the examples of the Hellenistic religions Greco-Buddhism or Mithraism can't be done because the specific citation is not in the lede (despite the fact that these citations are already present further into the article). Furthermore, in regards to the citations for the cities, all the quotes together at the end sentence of the lede establish the importance of those named Hellenistic cities Alexandria, Antioch, Persepolis, Bactra, Sirkap. The single quote you mentioned only references Persepolis.

You claim Ethel E. Ewing, William Oscar Emil Oesterley, and James Talboys Wheeler are not reliable sources. What makes you say that they're not reliable sources of information? Be specific.

This is the section using the sources you claim are "not reliable": The Hellenistic Middle East was an area that facilitated the exchange of ideas between the cultures of Greece, Persia, Egypt, India, and Africa.^[1] Hellenistic culture was defined by its secular aspect, and facility to absorb elements from non-Greek sources such as local ideas and religion. Hellenists formed this diverse world culture.^[2]^[3]

Further you claim that "Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination" and "travel guides" are WP:RS, but don't give a reason why; disqualification of travel guides is not mentioned anywhere in the list of reliable source, so show that too.

It seems like you want to make an opinion, but not willing to provide good evidence to support it. Aearthrise (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under current name (or possibly another). The conquest of Alexander the Great led to a significant Hellenic influence on the Middle East. This is worthy of an article on the spread of Greek culture in the Middle East. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 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. ✗plicit 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Zafrul Hasan Rizvi

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

I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. SL93 (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from a cursory Google search, it seems like this is someone who might be (barely) notable if you're an islamic scholar who knows where to find the right sources to back everything up. While I know WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, this article is in such a dire state of unsourced, highly original disrepair (and has been for over a decade) that if I ripped out everything that isn't verifiable we're gonna be down to a single sentence with no indication of notability. Regretfully, I propose WP:TNT. BrigadierG (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not any reliable sources on the page with significant coverage on the subject. This is another one of those WP:SYNTH pages where an editor uses his own analysis or synthesis of materials that implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, I found not a single reliable source with in-depth coverage that can establish notability for the subject. The subject fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 11:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed WP:GNG, nothing found about this person. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage and fails GNG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:05, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Movieguide Epiphany Prize for Most Inspiring Movie

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

Weird partisan award that reviews movies "from a christian perspective" with no coverage aside from that which it generates itself. BrigadierG (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. I came up with no coverage beyond the cursory.
Weak keep per RunningTiger123 and a few column inches in the LA Times in 1996. JSFarman (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards. SL93 (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the awards are covered in industry publications such as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline. Based on practices for other awards, once the overall awards are established as notable and have run for a few years, individual category lists such as this are acceptable (especially since the listed films mostly have their own articles, fulfilling a navigational purpose as well). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As others have noted, there's some press coverage, if not much. But even if there weren't, notability isn't proportional to coverage. The moral implications of the culture is a huge issue, and this award is the biggest thing I know of that deals with that. It's true that it's partisan, and that's a reason to provide a counterpoint, but it isn't a reason to suppress information about it. That would be far more partisan than the award is. - Burner89751654 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from the main article and has reliable sources coverage such as Variety, Deadline, and Hollywood Reporter, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:34, 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 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 14:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Paasch

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

WP:PROMO article creator wordlessly moved back from draftspace with no substantial coverage BrigadierG (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Behavioural science, Psychology, and Germany. Skynxnex (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 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.

^ Ethel E. Ewing (1961). Our Widening World: A History of the World's Peoples. Rand McNally. p. 59.
^ William Oscar Emil Oesterley (1914). The Books of the Apocrypha: Their Origin, Teaching and Contents. Revell. p. 12.
^ James Talboys Wheeler (1853). An Analysis and Summary of New Testament History: Including the Four Gospels Harmonized ... the Acts ... an Analysis of the Epistles and Book of Revelation ... the Critical History, Geography, Etc., with Copious Notes, Historical, Geographical and Antiquarian. Arthur Hall, Virtue, and Company. p. 28.

[ethelewing-1] Ethel E. Ewing (1961). Our Widening World: A History of the World's Peoples. Rand McNally. p. 59.

[williamoscaremiloesterley-2] William Oscar Emil Oesterley (1914). The Books of the Apocrypha: Their Origin, Teaching and Contents. Revell. p. 12.

[jamestalboyswheeler-3] James Talboys Wheeler (1853). An Analysis and Summary of New Testament History: Including the Four Gospels Harmonized ... the Acts ... an Analysis of the Epistles and Book of Revelation ... the Critical History, Geography, Etc., with Copious Notes, Historical, Geographical and Antiquarian. Arthur Hall, Virtue, and Company. p. 28.

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnostic theism (3rd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Pune car crash}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic Notebook}}