Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alphaonekannan (talk | contribs) at 06:36, 27 June 2022 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Production.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< June 26 June 28 >

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 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. North America1000 10:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Production

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

No significant coverage. Sources dont give any coverage to the subject Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FanCode

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

No evidence of notability. WP:GNG not met Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Enough coverage from multiple reliable sources such as TOI, The Hindu, Forbes etc. It indicates that the subject has received substantial independent media coverage, meeting key requirements of WP: NCORP. Lorenzo the great (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)</> — Lorenzo the great (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Akevsharma
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/dream11-launches-ad-free-multi-sport-aggregator-platform-fancode-119042500907_1.html Yes Yes Major national business daily Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
https://www.forbesindia.com/amp/article/take-one-big-story-of-the-day/how-fancode-is-building-a-onestop-destination-for-sports-lovers/76425/1 Yes Yes Written by Forbes staff which is reliable under WP:FORBES Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/dream11-launches-sports-aggregator-platform-fancode/articleshow/69045506.cms Yes Yes The source is the third largest national newspaper by circulation Yes Discuss the subject briefly, which count towards GNG ✔ Yes
https://m.economictimes.com/news/sports/dream11-launches-multi-sports-aggregator-platform-fancode/amp_articleshow/69042709.cms Yes Yes Major business focused national daily Yes The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The sources are reliable comprehensive, independent, and they meet the criteria both for WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH]. Akevsharma (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NCORP's WP:ORGIND defines "Independent Content" and almost all of the sources in the article and above are based on interviews and information provided by the company and their execs. None of that is "Independent Content" when it is simply repeating information created and put out by the company. Saying "meets CORPDEPTH" doesn't amount to meeting NCORP if the in-depth information was provided by the company. HighKing++ 16:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • HighKing - your thoughts about this article and FanCode's involvement in that fake tournament. Forgive my suspicions – but claims of 50 million customers when the published number is 20 million customers and a $50 million investment makes me wonder, as does the fact that the nom +2 socks were recently discovered. I don't think WP should be used to promote startups or the shady activity surrounding it, so KUDOS to Girth Summit for his diligence in catching it. Atsme 💬 📧 12:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As a source to assist in establishing notability? There's no in-depth details about the company in the article so fails CORPDEPTH. Not sure what you mean by the company's "involvement" in the fake tourney - they were tricked/scammed. Happens to a lot of companies. You also mention that you don't think WP should be used to "promote" companies - absolutely, WP is not a platform for promotion of any company or topic. Again though, I'm not seeing any reason to side-swipe the topic company over this. HighKing++ 15:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also not a reliable source (WP:TOI) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: According to Akevsharma's detailed review of the sources above, which points out the reliable significant media coverage. I agree some of them are are mainly interviews, but do not agree to the argument that these are not independent sources. WP:INDEPENDENT describes that a third-party source is independent if they are unaffiliated with the subject. These sources are published by some third parties with original analysis from editors who have no connection with this company. This makes them independent. Hence this meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. ChristinaNY (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hey ChristinaNY, whay are you looking at WP:INDEPENDENT when NCORP is the applicable guideline? Check out WP:ORGIND which also include a definition for "Independent Content" as original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. You say that the sources contain "original analysis" from editors who have no connection with the company. Can you please point to a source/paragraph which you say is "original analysis"? HighKing++ 12:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Majority of these sources provide detailed analysis along with statements from some interviews. How does this not make it an independent source.? A source is independent if it contain independent analysis and fact-checking. I'm clearly seeing that here. Some of these sources which included pieces from some interviews doesn't change the fact that they are independent. Highking probably only saw the interview part in it and missed the rest. Akevsharma (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That source analysis is deeply flawed. Look at the Business Standard article - the first in that analysis - it doesn't even have a byline! BS Staff is common practice as a byline to give to press handouts and that is certainly what we have here - press handout picture and clearly company announcement, totally stood up on officials from the company making claims about the company. That's the problem with the sourcing in this article - it cutteth not the mustard. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The title of some citations may give the impression that its just an announcement by the company. But many of them contains independent analysis and fact-checking. I have only attached four sources which is generally considered reliable. Other sources are also there in the article that gives more in-depth coverage. Akevsharma (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to one of the sources and the paragraph number that you believe contains independent analysis and fact-checking. HighKing++ 12:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Sources The four sources above all relate to the topic company launching their FanCode platform. Three of the sources refer to the announcement. All are dated 25th April. All contain the same facts and information albeit with slightly different wording. Similar articles using the same phrases and wording also appeared in order publications/websites such as animationxpress, Gutshot Magazine and hastalamotion. I'm finding it difficult to understand how on earth anyone thinks all of these regurgitated company announcements are "Independent Content" with claims that they contain independent/original analysis and fact-checking. The remaining source from Forbes India is entirely based on an interview with the co-founders and information provided by the company. There are supplementary comments about the overall streaming market from Raghav Anand of EY but he doesn't say anything about the topic company. Everything else might be said to meet CORPDEPTH but since it does not contain an iota of "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 12:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with PRAXIDICAE, and will add that I'm surprised this article wasn't a G11. WP is being inundated with these types of submissions. Look at the article and the sources - the bulk of cited sources are nothing more than marketing promotion under a thin veil. For example, read the Forbes India (updated May 30, 2022) source's headline: How FanCode is building a one-stop destination for sports lovers - the source writes about this start-up company (2019) and new software - And that’s exactly what the FanCode founders—Yannick Colaco and Prasana Krishnan—have set out to do: Build a digital destination for sports fans. It's unproven hype & marketing at this point in time, WP:CRYSTAL. It's a step beyond vaporware, so let it incubate and when it becomes notable and widespread beyond marketing hype, we can consider inclusion. Atsme 💬 📧 14:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks Atsme for this better picture regarding Forbes. The first thing I noticed was this source from Forbes. I didnt had a second thought because Forbes (written by its staff) is considered a reliable source in enwiki. Now I understood how manipulating these sometimes can be. WP:CORPDEPTH is very tricky and confusing in may aspcets. HighKing, I have couple of question for you. I had read somewhere that notability can be established by combining the sources to get SIGCOV. Is'nt that applicable here? The second one is regarding WP:GNG. If a topic meets GNG, does it need to meet SNG too? Take this as an example itself. I think notability might be bordeline looking upon GNG. Regarding CORPDEPTH, Im having some second thoughts after seeing Atsme's opinion. Let me go through some past lengthy AFD after which I will consider changing my opinion. Meanwhile, I hope Highking can give me a clear picture for me. Akevsharma (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Akevsharma, you asked two questions - first one, if notability can be established by combining sources. As per WP:SIRS: Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below .... Second one, is it an either/or situation for GNG *or* SNG. Some editors (often after it has been shown that a topic fails an SNG :-) argue that because WP:N says a topic is notable if it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right, this allows for an interpretation whereby a topic may fail an appropriate SNG but still be notable because it "passes GNG". When it comes to NCORP though, NCORP doesn't actually add or remove anything from GNG but provides clarification and examples and urges editors to apply a strict interpretation on sourcing. I would wager that when you say "borderline looking upon GNG", you are in effect attempting to apply a wooly interpretation of "Independent of the subject" and in effect dilute or even exclude the ORGIND "Independent Content" clarification .. as a guess. In general, consensus is that NCORP (and GNG) can be ignored as per WP:IAR in exceptional circumstances - I don't think this is one of those. HighKing++ 10:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Attaching one of the few sources and the fact checking in it [1]. As part of its sports data and statistics offering, FanCode provides access to information and data on sports leagues, teams and players for sports fans and fantasy sports users. This includes match previews, venue details, pitch reports, weather forecasts, player performances and post-match analysis. It also has about 20 experts on-board across sports categories to provide data and predictions through a detailed analysis of players and teams, supplemented by video representation, infographics, and even blogs as official authors. Since the launch in 2019, FanCode claims to garner over 15 million users. It has launched interactive live streaming of matches with multimedia commentary, live scores, news on the sports industry across the globe, bite-sized video content like match highlight packages, chat shows with sports personalities in a new-age format, fantasy sports research and expert opinions. Here is one hindi sources of the many [2].Silentone1995 (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move content to List of BBC studios to be converted to set index page. Redirect from BBC studio to set index page.. TigerShark (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Studio

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

All of these are partial title matches or not a match. There's none of these that could conceivably be correctly (or likely to be incorrectly) referred to as just "BBC Studio". (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is arguably a lot of confusion about this and it might be nice to help readers find what they need, given that the term "BBC studio" continues to be used a lot informally, and most of the official names can be hard to keep straight unless you live in one of the areas or work in the industry. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was merged from Cover Story. BD2412 T 05:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cover story

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

Pretty useless as a disambiguation page: one unlinked entry/definition and one entry with three links, only one of which even mentions the term (and limited hangout is a more limited meaning). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2022 (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, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We've got two different merger proposals here of disambiguation pages and it's unlikely that either will be acted upon without more clear consensus of whether the page title should be Cover story or Cover Story.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It also states that the simplest form is preferred. Though yeah, it doesn't explicitly give the principle (which is well established in practice) that common nouns are preferable to proper names: you don't use the proper noun variant (Cover Story) unless all the entries are proper nouns. – Uanfala (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Cover Story. I think "Cover story" is the correct name for the merged page. Once the pages are merged, there'll be easily enough links to be able to write a disambiguation page. --ais523
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, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cash Williams

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

Fails WP:GNG; lack of WP:SIGCOV. This is really the only thing that comes close from a third-party source. JTtheOG (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melonie Tasher

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idania Ramírez

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Codd

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ermine Ferguson

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Arzu

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion after a PROD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long Ridge, Danbury

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

NN neighborhood. No independent sources on this neighborhood. Coverage is just about individual places. MB 02:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Aloali'i Mitchell

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV --IdiotSavant (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Balwant Singh College

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 15:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get it back on the log per request on my Talk following my soft delete close. No need for it to run seven days unless someone finds it helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A degree awarding institution with significant history (170 years), I'd fail to see how this college is not notable - The Times of India piece is significant (let alone further coverage from ToI and India Today and there is a considerable body of work linking back to the College across a number of fields. Breezes past WP:GNG with a cheeky wink. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the sources provided by Alexandermcnabb, Hzh presented these sources in the first AFD which also constitute significant coverage [7][8][9]. I question whether the nominator actually followed WP:BEFORE or took the time to look at the sources in the first AFD. One of these sources states that Raja Balwant Singh College has the largest college campus in Asia.4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keepers. The article is not great but the sources are there, even just in English. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There seems to be a disconnect between the guideline on whether this should exist and editors feelings on such. A consensus to delete this is not going to form. Suggest meta discussion on the disconnect elsewhere. Star Mississippi 14:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Harley

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY - Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones.

Neither the gymnast nor the electoral candidate are notable, and thus a disambiguation page here violates WP:NOT and cannot be kept. BilledMammal (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the outcome of this discussion closed only last month, and MOS:DABMENTION - "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    New information has become available; none of the editors in that discussion were aware of this aspect of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Further, MOS:DABMENTION (a guideline) and NOTDIRECTORY (a policy) are not in conflict, as not all notable topics warrant their own article. When a topic doesn't warrant its own article but is notable, it can be mentioned in dab pages per DABMENTION, but when it is not notable it can not, per NOTDIRECTORY. BilledMammal (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your adamant on your deletion stance, so I'm not going to argue the point with you. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, given the RfD (I created this dab page). It's helpful: it clearly disambiguates between two encyclopedic-but-not-notable topics. The reader is helped by this page existing; it's a better bet than to leave them staring at likely unhelpful search results. That's the important part out of the way; helpfulness really is the primary consideration when it comes to navigational pages like this one. DABMENTION, as a specific guideline, is absolutely the policy to refer to here as it covers this situation. This is what DABMENTION says:

    If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader.

    Nothing about a notability requirement, nothing about this section only applying in some rare, NOPAGE exception. I believe that the likely undiscussed turn of phrase in NOTDIRECTORY should be clarified, and that a wider discussion should take place on the merits of no-blue-link dab pages. But for now, this should be kept – as for DABMENTION itself, I'm fairly confident that the nominator's view is very different to practice. J947 † edits 09:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTDIRECTORY (policy) and it's intersection with MOS:DABMENTION (guideline). On balance the list has contextual information showing reasonable encyclopaedic merit, so passes NOTDIRECTORY point 1 and I don't consider it a set of loosely associated topics (point 2) - otherwise we'd be deleting every list of people by surname which I imagine is not a good idea. The other points of NOTDIRECTORY don't seem to apply to me. In terms of DABMENTION I tend to think this adds substantial value and am completely unconvinced by the merit of the argument that I've seen recently that the search function is a better way of getting to articles - an argument which seems to have no foundation in policy and which, in my experience, is flat out untrue. The politician is certainly someone who I can imagine showing up more on PapersPast searches, and the athlete is someone who competed at the top-level of international sport and may well have more that can be written about them without necessarily having their own article. So, on balance I think keeping here is reasonable, especially given that there has been a recent RfD discussion that is related. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was a reasonable solution to the RfD. (This disambiguation page is clearly not a complete listing of every person named Arthur Harley: it is an index of articles in Wikipedia that mention Arthur Harley). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DABMENTION, this is a misunderstanding of WP:NOTDIRECTORY due to a bit of casual verbiage that should be clarified. The context is that Wikipedia is not for simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. It follows that if a disambiguation page listed all Arthur Harleys, including those without any encyclopedic merit, it would be a violation of that. However, the two listed here are okay because they have encyclopedic merit—namely that we have encyclopedic article content on each of these Arthur Harleys. Therefore, anyone looking for such information would be able to find it by using the disambiguation page and it is a Good Thing to help our readers find such information. -- Tavix (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced that is the intent - is it really beneficial to list every mentioned John Smith at John Smith, and to have a disambiguation page for every non-notable person mentioned on Wikipedia? This also causes additional issues with choosing the target; while there is always a clear target for notable individuals, as either their standalone article or the article that covers them in the context of a broader topic, that is not always the case for non-notable individuals who might be mentioned in multiple articles.
    In any case, policy is currently clear that dab pages should only list notable individuals, and until there is a consensus to change policy we must follow it - while an argument can be made that the MOS disagrees with this, policy is controlling over the MOS. BilledMammal (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not every individual mentioned on Wikipedia should be listed in the disambiguation page. The guidance at WP:DABMENTION states that it should be listed only if it would provide value to the reader. If a non-notable person is mentioned in multiple articles, there will almost always be one that gives more information than others, which would be the page to use. For example, I find it happens a lot with perennial political candidates, and using their most recent campaign is usually best because it will list their previous runs. I don't think the long-standing guidance at WP:DABMENTION should be thrown away due to a poorly worded sentence at WP:NOT. Can you find consensus that established this wording? I find it much more likely that someone slipped that wording in there intending to clarify that disambiguations are not for listing any Tom, Dick, and Harry but perhaps was not aware of when disambiguation pages are allowed to have entries from non-notable subjects. -- Tavix (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see it coming down to whether having tens of thousands of dab pages like this would be beneficial to the encyclopedia, and I don't think they would be - they wouldn't be maintained, which means that readers would struggle to find mentions of the Arthur Harley that were added after the dab page was created. In addition, adding mentions like these to current dab pages like John Smith would make them excessively long, and make it difficult for readers to find the notable John Smith that they are searching for. As for targets, that might be the case with most political candidates but it isn't with athletes - for example, an Olympian who competed in two Olympics will rarely have one that gives more information than the others.
    The long-standing guidance is at WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which was added eight years ago. The current text at WP:DABMENTION was added two years ago, changing it from a requirement to include mentions after an informal discussion that didn't consider WP:NOT (looking at John Smith from prior to that change, it doesn't appear that requirement was ever followed). BilledMammal (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's definitely an art and not a science. I would presume the bar to adding a non-notable person to John Smith is higher than adding a non-notable person to eg. Arthur Harley. With the former, it can quickly get unwieldy (and that's probably why you don't see too many of them). With the latter, if you're looking for an Arthur Harley non-notable people are your only options, so it's not something to worry about. For the example about an Olympian that competed in two Olympics, I'd recommend using the more recent Olympics and then adding a mention (or footnote if there isn't room) in the article for that Olympic event that they competed in a prior Olympics. That should give the necessary context. Also, since it appears you have done research on the history of the wording, can you supply the diffs please? I'd be interested in reviewing that. -- Tavix (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue isn't with the individual dab pages for smaller ones like Arthur Harley; its that the ten of thousands of dab pages that would be created if we revoke that aspect of WP:NOTDIRECTORY would be unmaintainable, and make it harder for readers to find an Arthur Harley that is mentioned in an article created next year. In any case, at the moment NOTDIRECTORY is very clear on the topic, and we should follow it until there is a consensus to change it; I have no objection to draftifying this article in the meantime, to make restoring it easier if that consensus does occur.
    The diffs are NOTDIRECTORY and DABMENTION. BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Disambiguation pages don't require much maintenance, nor would keeping this disambiguation page lead to the creation of tens of thousands of others; they are simply created when an editor would find one useful. If you find a disambiguation page that "does not provide value to the reader", to use the language from WP:DABMENTION, that would be a better angle to make an argument for deletion. Back to the diffs, the WP:DABMENTION change (still allowing them, but changing from "should" to "may") is the result of a discussion. The change to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, however, was boldly added to clarify that disambiguation pages are not yellow pages or white pages and shouldn't list all people with the name. I doubt Jsharpminor had meant to conflict with WP:DABMENTION, but perhaps with this ping they can clarify if available. -- Tavix (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The intro to this nomination is confusing. Nominator wants this deleted by WP:NOTDIR and folks here respond justifiably with: "Well, what about WP:DABMENTION?" This article's problem, however, is with WP:NLIST (i.e. not with WP:NOTDIR). A list's notability is impacted by the notability of its members (i.e. notability for lists is inherited, to a degree). When the ONLY members of a disambiguation page point at people who are not notable (right now) for Enwiki entries, that list in its entirety is not sufficiently notable to preserve. DABMENTION regulates that such entries can absolutely be included once the disambiguation is warranted, not that a disambiguation page can be constructed only from dabmentions. A list with only dabmentions fails WP:NLIST. gidonb (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Tavix's argument related to WP:NOTDIR not applying here. With regards to WP:NLIST, I would argue that does not apply as this is not a list page, but is a disambiguation page, which has different scrutiny. TartarTorte 18:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page is a specific kind of list, not a non-list! gidonb (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue special enough to be not subject to WP:NLIST. TartarTorte 15:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm leaving this up to editors to create a redirect since no target was proposed here. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abadan, Farhangian sector

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

A BEFORE search does not turn up any coverage, let alone significant coverage. There are some sources in the Persian Wikipedia version of the article, but they did not appear to meet SIGCOV. As a populated place without legal recognition, it is not presumed notable under WP:GEOLAND. HouseBlastertalk 17:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Eelam with the history underneath as it's unclear whether merging would be necessary or ideal. Star Mississippi 14:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eelam (disambiguation)

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

A list of generic meanings of a Tamil word does not a disambiguation page make. It appears to have been created in order to resolve a disagreement about the inclusion of this content on Eelam (the actual article about the word). But disambiguation pages are navigational aids, not containers for rejected article content. – Uanfala (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Eelam, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE (talk • contribs) 18:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Yes, Eelam is not an English word. However, it doesn't refer an inconsequential item or something for which there is, and/or can be substituted, by an English term. Eelam may refer to a state/country (Sri Lanka) or the ideological state (Tamil Eelam). Hence, even English speakers will have to use this non English word to describe either of the states. Additionally, Eelam also could mean a lot of other things as already mentioned in the disambiguation page hence a dedicated disambiguation page is justified. @Uanfala questions if an English reader will use the Tamil word Eelam to search for gold, spurges or other things that the word Eelam could mean. Why do we have to assume that an English Wikipedia reader doesn't know Tamil? Or that Tamil speakers don't use English Wikipedia? Additionally, regardless of a reader's ability to speak Tamil, the disambiguation page lets readers know that the word Eelam has other meanings too. So, a dab page doesn't have to serve only those who already know all the possible meanings for the word and search by it; it can also serve those who is interested to find out additional topics a word they know or searching for, can refer to.
Pras92 (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the page we're discussing was really a disambiguation page (rather than a fragment of an article), it wouldn't be acceptable for it to have entries for say, the Tamil word for 'gold', see MOS:DABOTHERLANG. That's because disambiguation pages aren't meant to serve as multilingual dictionaries, you can read about some of the reasoning behind that at WP:RLOTE. So far, it appears that the term "Eelam" in English is ambiguous between the geographic term Eelam (which is currently being treated as the primary topic) and the proposed state Tamil Eelam. There's no need for a disambiguation page so far: the primary article has a hatnote to the other one. A disambiguation page will be needed only if there isn't a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since, shortly after making my original comment, I was thinking about the logic behind existence of dab pages: There shouldn't be a Singam dab page listing the movie Singam and a page for Lion, just because Singam is the Tamil word for Lion. This example is what gave me a better understanding on how to take the Tamil Lexicon reference; it may be suited for Wikitionary, but not in Wikipedia. The only actual ambiguity is between Eelam and Tamil Eelam, which is already taken care within their respective pages. Hence, I change my opinion to Delete and my original opinion to Keep was premature. Would like to add that the opinion for deletion doesn't contend the idea of the word Eelam having other definitions as stated in the Lexicon, but that it wouldn't make sense within en.wikipedia.
And thanks for your links @Uanfala. They confirmed my second thoughts and yes, this dab needs deletion. Pras92 (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 14:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carina, Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg

Carina, Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Virtually all sources are self-promotional from either her or her publishers. DrKay (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third nomination. DrKay (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first two AfD discussions can be found here (the result of which was to keep) and here (no consensus). --Kbabej (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that you've canvassed, please ping everyone who contributed to the previous discussions, regardless of whether they supported or opposed the nomination. DrKay (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Just blatant canvassing now? And notability standards in 2009 were orders of magnitude laxer than they are now. JoelleJay (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't find which template to add to indicate that this is the 3rd AfD for this article, as indicated on talk page. Could someone please add it? Thanks. PamD 07:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I personally don't think the subject meets the notability guidelines as an author. However, as a member of a royal family I'd say she does based on "Carina Axelsson" turning up more than 37,000 articles in a Google News Search. That said, I'd like to hear from editors more familiar with notability guidelines for members of royalty, so I'm going to post info about this AfD on WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. --SouthernNights (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SouthernNights, there are no notability guidelines for members of nobility (whether recognized or legally nonexistent, the latter being the case here since all German noble titles were abolished in 1919); they must meet the same GNG/BIO coverage requirements as anyone else. The fact that her marriage received fleeting attention does not mean that she herself has been the subject of SIGCOV independent of her relationship. If all we can say about her is basic biographical facts and how she's married into a defunct princely family; and if that coverage is almost entirely derived from her wedding, then we should not have a standalone article on her per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E. JoelleJay (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even before becoming the partner of the prince (and since marrying him) she had a career as an author. Her books have been reviewed in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer here; Fresh Fiction here; and the Young Folks here. There's an in-depth piece on the subjects life and career in the Northern Echo here. Then, of course, there's the many, many sources reporting on her relationship with the prince and their recent marriage. --Kbabej (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, WP:HEY. I've added two magazine cover appearances (German Elle and American Vogue Patterns); three book reviews for the Model Undercover series; added a planned fourth book in that series; sourced out her early life (ethnicity, siblings, etc); added she is friends with the Swedish royal family and is godmother to Princess Athena; added the Royal Rebel series; and restructured the article into two subsections under "Biography and career": 'Personal life' and then 'Career'. I'd love if editors could take a look at the changes and see if that makes any difference in their !votes. Either way, I appreciate the time it would take. Cheers! (PS - tagging the "Delete" !votes above, as some editors don't watch AfD pages on which they've contributed: @JoelleJay, @Ari T. Benchaim, and nominator @DrKay). --Kbabej (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just found a very large list of magazine shoots accompanied with scanned pages, including appearances in Vogue x2; Vogue Italia x3 (where she was shot by Ellen von Unwerth); and another cover, this time for Madame Figaro. I've added those as well. They don't have URLs, obviously, because they're from the early/mid-1990s, but there are photos online of the magazine spreads. --Kbabej (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are a number of issues with the many new sources added. 1. The Seattle PI "review" is actually from user "Sahar" on blogcritics.org, so is not RS. 2. StressyMummy is also quite clearly a blog. 3. The Dorset Echo piece has no byline and is sourced to her website, so is not independent. 4. The Young Folks review was written by an 18-year-old volunteer contributing writer before the site had editors, so is also not reliable. 5. Fresh Fiction might be reliable, but it is not clear whether their reviewers are paid professionals, and the site as a whole is extremely, unabashedly promotional for authors. 6. The Royal Correspondent is also a blog (that I managed to completely extirpate from wikipedia last Christmas). I would say Axelsson does not meet NAUTHOR criteria, but it's possible her modeling career garnered enough coverage for GNG. Do the Vogue Italia etc. spreads give her (written) SIGCOV, or was she just a model for them? JoelleJay (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can tell, the spreads are her modeling without SIGCOV about her attached. --Kbabej (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given that she has appeared on the cover of several prominent fashion magazines, I would say she passes criteria 2 of WP:NMODEL.4meter4 (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell she was only on the cover of German Elle and Vogue Patterns, neither of which is particularly prominent. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Madame Figaro as well. —Kbabej (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Beyond the tabloid stuff covering her wedding and social life, nothing found for sources. Also searched in French, all I see are amazon listings and the like for her books, teen fiction it appears. Not notable as an author, or in general. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG per source provied by Kbabej and JoelleJay. Princesses of deposed royalty could be notable, because their businesses, charity work, attendance at relatives' notable weddings, or a notable scandal often provides them with media attention, which would have reliable sources. Taung Tan (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whitby Wizard

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

Notability Happyecheveria (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep" !votes need to elaborate further. Citing a relevant notability guideline, how is this museum notable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact it is seen as "the quirkiest science centre museum in the U.K" and "it was inspired by the world famous Exploratorium in San Francisco and the Questacon Science Circus based in Canberra" makes it interesting as these are famous museums. It does however need sources other than the local newspaper, but I think that needs someone closer to the museum than I am. --Bduke (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not the most detailed nomination I've seen, but sort of cuts to the chase. If you want The Express as higher circulation coverage, here it is, but it's a pretty passing mention. Other than that, notability is absent. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. There's no consensus to delete or redirect the article, but not enough consensus to keep it either. Nonetheless, editors are encouraged to add the sources indicated in this discussion to the article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Batwanes Beek

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The song is briefly mentioned at the performers article. This article was simultaneously created as a pair with and linked from an article on the composer Salah El Sharnouby which also appears to be an AFD candidate and IMO was most likely created to support / be linked from the Salah El Sharnouby article. North8000 (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oloa Tofaeono

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing isn't sufficient Star Mississippi 15:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GovExec

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP. That's all there is to say here, really. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A leader in a niche is probably not notable as per WP:NCORP, but that aside the sources are problematic - Forbes sites are not RS and a lot of this other coverage is routine funding/acquisition news and announcements. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To address your RS concern, I've removed the Forbes/sites link as a citation from the body of the article. (Both passages it supported are also supported by at least one other RS source.) I've moved the link to "External links" because its author Tony Silber is a journalist of long standing and his take on the company will likely be of interest to readers. PRRfan (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see WP:GNG as satisfied by the sources provided. This goes well beyond routine funding/acquisition news and announcements. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to one of those references which goes "well beyond" routine funding/acquisition news and announcements? Especially with WP:ORGIND and "Independent Content" in mind. I'm not seeing it. HighKing++ 14:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's Axios assessing and asserting the company's significance in its market: "Prior to GovExec, there hasn't been one media company that has tried to bundle all of the content and services that serve public-sector officials in one place." That is Axios' reporting, not company officials talking.[1]
    • Here's Business Insider assessing the company's importance as business-to-business media, which "has been a bright spot in an industry that struggled during the pandemic, leading to layoffs and furloughs across the media world." The article explores the company's history, distinguishes it from other media companies, compares it to market competitors, presents assessments by outside business analysts, etc.[2] PRRfan (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that. The Axios reference does indeed contain a small amount of in-depth "Independent Content" and although is pretty small and light-weight there's an argument to be made that once you exclude stuff that fails ORGIND, there's enough to meet CORPDEPTH and therefore NCORP. But the Business Insider reference does not. The sentence you've extracted is a general comment about "B2B media" - in fact you omitted that from the beginning of the extract. There's nothing in that article that can be said to be in-depth "Independent Content". HighKing++ 17:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't omit "B2B media"; I literally spelled out the abbreviation to make things clearer. The point is that the article reports that GovExec is notable, in part, because it and similar companies have bucked a general trend. This is explicitly asserted in the piece's first two sentences, and backed up by the rest of the article. PRRfan (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, for me the way your sentence is written is ambiguous. It isn't clear that the extracted quote is actually referring to the general B2B marketplace. But I disagree that the article reports that GovExec is notable. Nowhere is that stated and interpretations that are not WP:V are potentially WP:OR. For me, based on reading the article and the style of writing, my opinion is there is no in-depth "Independent Content" in the article. The comments that aren't directly attributed to an exec or an announcement or filing are, for me, either comments about a general marketplace and not made relevant to this topic company or simple summaries or positioning so that the next quote or sentence attributed to the company is in better context and easier to understand. HighKing++ 20:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. It is certainly true that the article does not say "GovExec is notable", a bar that would consign a lot of other companies' pages to deletion. Yet it's hardly an "interpretation" to note that the perfectly RS Business Insider published this article because it deemed the company notable, and for at least two reasons that the piece explicitly asserts and then explores: first, that it is among the rare private-equity-backed media companies that are growing, not shrinking; and second, that it is among the rare media companies that grew, not shrank, during the pandemic. Does the article quote company officials? Sure. Does it put those quotes in a larger context? Yes. (Does it quote an unnamed employee about lingering fears? Yep.) PRRfan (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic of published this article because it deemed the company notable, every article ever published confers notability. I think this company is unusual, they appear to be an important part of the US Government's channel for communication and therefore are involved with a lot of announcements - but nobody seems to have written a lot *about* them. If we could get another article similar to the Axios piece I'd consider changing my !vote. HighKing++ 11:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing that any article which features a quote or statement from a company isn't independent coverage. Do I understand you correctly? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that ORGIND says articles must contain "Independent Content". Usually that's easy to spot because the journalist will not pepper every second paragraph with phrases that attributes the imparted information and content to the topic company or to a party affiliated with the topic company. I assume every article is from a respectable third party publisher but that's not enough, the content must also be intellectually independent. HighKing++ 19:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not the standard that WP:ORGIND lays out for Independent Content... "pepper every second paragraph with phrases that attributes the imparted information and content to the topic company or to a party affiliated with the topic company" is OK as long as there is also "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." which you're clearly saying there is in every other paragraph. This doesn't appear to meet any of the "Examples of dependent coverage" at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll stop this here. I've said all I have to say on this topic. Your various interpretations of NCORP are bizarre and I'll leave it to the closing admin to make whatever determination they see fit. HighKing++ 21:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why you're using Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), this passes WP:GNG so its GNG you need to address. If GNG is satisfied the supplemental standard is irrelevant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Fischer, Sara (2021-09-14). "Exclusive: GovExec completes 9th acquisition as revenues double". Axios. Retrieved 2022-06-08.
  2. ^ Perlberg, Steven. "Government Executive built a profitable media company after spinning off from Atlantic Media last year. Now it's on the hunt for acquisitions". Business Insider. Retrieved 2022-06-08.
  • If you're following WP:N guidelines (which contains the GNG section) then you will also see WP:SNG (the very next section) which explicitly refers to the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. The consensus is that unless there are very good reasons to make an exception, we use WP:SNG guidelines to assess a topic against the appropriate category guidelines - so for companies, that's WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 17:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are unfortunately mistaken. The point of the NCORP guidelines is to clarify that there's a higher bar for inclusion of articles about organizations because of the large incentives to write about non-notable companies both in press and in Wikipedia. It's right there in WP:ORGCRIT! FalconK (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies. The references are all based entirely on company announcements - every single references either says that the information was told by an executive (or an executive of one of their acquisitions) or that the company "announced" the news with the remainder being mere mentions-in-passing. Nothing here comes close to meeting ORGIND, topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 14:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not true: "The references are all based entirely on company announcements"; see previous reply. PRRfan (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @HighKing: I believe that you are mistaken... We only look at WP:NCORP after evaluating WP:GNG and GNG is met. Also thats not even a correct interpretation of WP:NCORP as PRRfan has informed you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Teoni

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daru Taumua

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been expanded since the last "delete" !vote, requires additional evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even then I would lean towards delete. Per this [10] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ieti Taulealo

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tafsir e Ashrafi

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

Another non-notable and advertisement like page for an Urdu tafsir. However, this time they added a bunch of low quality and unrelated sources that don't actually source the statements in the article. Sources include links to the work on archive.org, dead link, a self-written list of someone's favorite tafsirs twice, a totally unrelated spammy website about the name Abbas, and a link to buy the book. Of the two legitimate articles, one is about it being presented as a gift and the Hindi one appears to be about the scholar's life. The topic of his tafsir is covered well on his biography already. Searching brings up book piracy websites and blogs. Zaynab1418 (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Taga'i

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - North America - I think if you're going to relist an AFD with two delete !votes (three including the nom.) and no opposes there should be some explanation. I get that AFD is stacked with cases and there is a lot of work to do here, but surely the consensus here is already clear? What more are people supposed to say other than that they failed to find any sources? FOARP (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000: WP:SOFTDELETION would still have been appropriate: the fact remains that nobody wants to keep it, and the page would have been deleted if it had been prodded. Avilich (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Significant discussion, with particular focus on WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:LISTN. There does not seem to be significant disagreement that the subject of list itself is notable. There also seems to be consensus that not all lists of deaths are non-notable memorials. TigerShark (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the September 11 attacks

List of victims of the September 11 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia simply isn't a memorial. I can't think of any other case where we've had an article dedicated to listing every individual in a mass casualty event - terrorism or otherwise and i don't see any reason why we should. Notable victims, yes, but other than that, absolutely not. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lean delete per WP:NOTDATABASEWP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. An argument could be made that it meets WP:LISTN, as the victims of the September 11 attacks have been discussed as a group by reliable sources, but WP:N makes it clear that we can only have an article if it is both notable and not excluded under WP:NOT, which makes me believe that argument is insufficient. BilledMammal (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This topic easily meets WP:LISTN, which says that a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Unlike most mass casualty events, there are an extraordinary number of works dedicated to the victims as a group, both at the time of the event and in the two decades that followed. These include books and book parts ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15]), news articles ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], and even a study about their specific location within WTC at the time of their death. Others above point to the lack of other sorts of things lists relating to other mass casualty events, but this is a bad WP:OTHERSTUFF argument that fails to consider the extent to which coverage actually exists for this specific topic. WP:NOTDATABASE prohibits four types of content: (1) Summary-only descriptions of work, (2) Lyrics databases, (3) Excessive listings of unexplained statistics, and (4) Exhaustive logs of software updates. Simply put, this is not any of those—this list is not a summary of a work, a database of lyrics, any sort of mathematical/statistical database, nor a log of software updates. The appeal to WP:NOTMEMORIAL is similarly confused and erroneous, as it notes that subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements and this article clearly meets WP:LISTN. 9/11 was a tremendously impactful event, generated a TON of coverage, and this particular entry is notable in its own right and it is so large that merging it into any article would result in that article being WP:TOOBIG. And, if one believes that the selection criteria for this are too wide and that only notable victims should be included in the table, then this is an issue that can be dealt with through ordinary editing. And, keeping in mind that WP:DEL-CONTENT demands that when editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page, this is not an argument that supports deletion outright. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    this is adequate in covering the group. a list of 3000 names is not. PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet, that doesn't address the WP:DEL-CONTENT reason for keeping, which is that ordinary editing processes are likely capable of improving the page to resolve policy issues with the content for an article with a notable subject. If there's consensus that the current selection criteria (all victims recognized by the WTC Museum) are too broad and could be replaced with a more narrow selection criteria (all notable victims), then the solution to get around it being overly broad would be to do that. But outright deletion is a plain overstep without so much as attempting to establish a better selection criteria the list through ordinary discussion and editing. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to WP:NOTDATABASE, you are correct; I got it and WP:NOTDIRECTORY confused. With that said WP:NOTDIRECTORY also doesn't make a clear argument for deletion; the argument would be that their contextual information showing encyclopedic merit is the fact that they were killed in the September 11 attacks, but that merit isn't obvious and could be argued either way. I still lean delete, but am not overly convinced either way. BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, the line in the policy refers to WP:LISTCRITERIA (i.e. how to set appropriate selection criteria) as the controlling guidance with respect to how we distinguish simple listings from encyclopedic ones. To echo my comment above, nobody appears to have even brought this up on the list's talk page. When there is a notable underlying topic (such as there is in this case by virtue of WP:LISTN), Ordinary discussion and editing related to selecting an appropriate selection criteria should at least be attempted before nuking a page from orbit on the basis that the article creator made the list's scope too wide; the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first (such as by opening requests for comment) before deleting the article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Absolutely notable and of importance. People are too quick to delete. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless something has changed in the last 10 years, I don't see how this is any different from the consensus achieved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 11th, 2001 victims list, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 11th, 2001 victims list and other more recent articles about similar subjects: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 2010 Quit Kashmir Movement PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article, and will be likely be discarded in the final analysis. Zaathras (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but only if the inclusion criteria is limited to people who are the subject of a Wikipedia biography. A list of several thousand names of mostly non-notable people is not encyclopedic, and the external links section should direct readers to the best of such comprehensive lists off-Wikipedia. Otherwise delete. Cullen328 (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and the 3,000-ish incoming redirects. Nothing appears to have changed, re: WP:NOTMEMORIAL, from old deletion discussions of similar pages, this smacks of just tossing things at the wall hoping this time it will stick. That people died on 9/11 is notable, but that does not confer individual notability upon each victim where they should be memorialized in a list. Zaathras (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a memorial or a directory or a place to create lists such as this. A page of just notable people would be a different thing but I am reminded of the thinking behind WP:BIO1E and whilst notability is required for all of the items in a list that doesn't mean that everyone needs to be shown. It seems to me that adding a well written note containing a link to the September 11 memorial on other pages could easily replace this page. I would also say that Wikipedia is not a place where it is appropriate to create additional workload by creating (well) over 100 redirects within a day without first raising it with the New Page Patrollers or the page creation talk page. These redirects will also make it just that little bit harder to create pages for other people of the same names and my preference would be for them to be removed as well. Gusfriend (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. We don't normally keep exhaustive lists of everyone killed in an aircraft accident. Has already been deleted in 2008. Consensus can change but not seeing any evidence that is the case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, naturally as I created the list. I see editors here saying the people on the list are not notable, but WP:N is quite clear:

    Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists

    And further...

    Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable

    The policy goes further to say that editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles, but that is just allowing editor discretion, not mandating it.
    Further to this, editors in this discussion may be interested to know that Praxidicae didn't just list this AfD, but this is a 3rd strike after first deciding to confront me on my talk page, and report me at WP:ANI. The article should be kept or deleted based on policy and reason, but its AfD listing may have been motivated otherwise. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as others said above, per various sections of WP:NOT, and also as an unnecessary and undesirable fork of Casualties of 9/11. We need an article about the casualties, not a list; this is "listcruft". The identity of every victim isn't a significant part of 9/11: the victims were not specifically chosen or targeted, they were just people tragically in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some are "notable" enough for their own article or "due for inclusion" (in wikispeak) in an existing article but not everyone. There is no encyclopedic value to listing all their 3,000 names, any more than it makes sense to list the names of everyone who died in a battle or war or natural disaster or terrorist attack or any mass casualty event. Also, it defines these non-notable people as victims. I mean the most important thing about these ~3,000 victims is not that they died on 9/11. I am sure each one of them did something more important in their lives. They should be remembered for their individual obituaries, and if they're not notable, there's no reason for Wikipedia to "take over" their internet footprint by listing them in a list article. Because let's face it, this will become a top search result for each one of these 3k names on the list. Levivich[block] 05:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Short of transcribing an actual phone book into an article, I don't think I could come up with a better example of an article that falls under both WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:COMMONSENSE. This list is complex (involving a lot of different but related parts) by virtue of its staggeringly immense size, and WP:LISTN specifically notes that "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex...lists." Therefore the notability criteria of WP:LISTN does not apply, as there is no consensus that simply having sources would create notability for such an atypical list subject. Furthermore, there is no notability for the group outside of the scope of the already existing Casualties of the September 11 attacks. Wikipedia:Article size says that articles of about 100k are too long and should be split into smaller articles. This article is well over 800k in size, and cannot be split into smaller articles. There is no justification for that. There is no rationale under Wikipedia policies or guidelines for this article to exist, and editing cannot improve the page in a way that will rectify these deficiencies. - Aoidh (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. As another editor pointed out we have the article Casualties of the September 11 attacks, which is good enough without a simple list of non notable names. Ajf773 (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTMEMORIAL explicitly applies to subjects of encyclopedia articles, not to content within articles or lists. It's meant to preclude editors from creating entire pages dedicated to memorialise someone not notable. Evidently, the September 11 attacks, and their victims as a group, are well above wp:notability's bar. — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dronebogus: With respect, reliance on WP:UNDUE is misplaced because that is concerned on maintaining balance within the content of articles, not the topics covered by Wikipedia. There is no policy that says Wikipedia must have a balance of articles from different areas around the world and we most certainly do not. I'm not convinced by reliance on WP:INDISCRIMINATE either, it is a clearly defined list. It's generally best to try and explain how the criteria apply to the particular article rather than simply listing them. See WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Local Variable (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list article title, but not the content. The current content is not true to label as it is only about the "fatal" "victims inscribed at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum". What about the victims who survived, but were seriously injured, suffered life-changing trauma, or now have long term career-limiting health effects; are they not victims, too? This article should be what the basic list article was intended to be, an index to provide links to the [Wikipedia] biography articles about the notable people who were victims of the September 11 attacks. The existing list is only about the fatal victims inscribed at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum, so that article should explain where the list of fatal victims are inscribed and how an on-line or printable version can be found. Wikipedia is not a September 11 memorial, so we should not have that memorial list here. However, a suitable Wikipedia article should note that these memorial inscriptions do exist and where these inscriptions can be found. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casualties of the September 11 attacks is an overview article about victims in general.
  • List of emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks is a subset of this topic. Thus, if the "List of 9/11 victims" article is deleted, then the "List of emergency workers killed in 9/11" may have similar issues.
  • Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks, Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks, Rescue and recovery effort after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, - These only talk tangentially about victims insofar as they talk about the aftermath and effects of the attacks.
  • List of tenants in One World Trade Center - Perhaps you mean List of tenants in 1 World Trade Center (1971–2001) and List of tenants in 2 World Trade Center, but not all tenants were victims (or were even in the buildings at the time of the attacks). Again, these are tangential.
  • American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 93, and United Airlines Flight 175 - These articles do talk about the victims of the respective flights. However, the victims are not the main focus of the article.
Of the articles mentioned above, only two of these pages actually talk about victims in depth. One of them is a subtopic article and the other is an overview article. Neither page really talks about the victims themselves, which is definitely a valid topic - at least, judging by the sources in @Mhawk10's comment and in the current list article. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Levivich: I would propose this list be an index, perhaps something like a disambiguation page. A name-sorted bulleted list of wiki-links to pre-existing Wikipedia articles, perhaps with a brief description of their notability and a sentence or two explaining what the list is and it's inclusion criteria. Something really basic and minimal, to avoid the article being any larger than necessary. The problem with Casualties of the September 11 attacks, and many other similar articles, is that they are verbose descriptions, with names scattered throughout the article in no particular name order or inclusion criteria. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, there's nothing that says notability for "the topic" means you have to create a list several thousand entries long for it, when it's already covered in other article proportionate to coverage. - Aoidh (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's exactly what they mean: we don't have lists of dead people even if reliable sources cover the topic. Levivich[block] 02:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do they? Here is what WP:NOTMEMORIAL says (emphasis mine):

Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. (WP:RIP is excluded from this rule.)

— Guarapiranga ☎ 02:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, the following also are lists of victims; should they be also be deleted on the basis of WP:NOTMEMORIAL? I don't think so.
— Guarapiranga ☎ 02:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He has a point N1TH Music (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've only checked the first two, but those lists aren't exhaustive. BilledMammal (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think this is actually a supplementary list to page Casualties of the September 11 attacks; we have such lists for many pages. The context ("911") seems to be obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with My very best wishes. It makes sense for a listing of those killed (which passes WP:NLIST) to be made into a WP:SPINOFF of the casualties page with its given size. There is contextual information showing encyclopedic merit in the very first sentence. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't generally name nonnotable people in almost any context unless it's somehow necessary or convenient for the narration of events -- much less make giant lists of them. (I suppose if it just listed notable deaths that might be a different story. But the fact is I think almost all list pages are stupid so I'm probably not a good judge on that score.) EEng 01:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mhawk10. In its terms, WP:NOTMEMORIAL says: Wikipedia is not [...] a memorial site ... Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. (WP:RIP is excluded from this rule.). The way I read this is that there is no prohibition per se on this type of article. Rather, it is that memorial articles generally fall outside of the notability criteria. That is why it says the subject[] of an article must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. To me, this calls for analysis of whether this list is itself notable: Notability of lists is based on the group. The past consensus decisions based on NOTMEMORIAL therefore ought not be followed. There is some analysis of notability above, but not a lot. Mhawk10 offers detailed analysis in favour of notability. I'm not convinced that an article which could be described as a 'memorial' (because it lists deceased individuals) is prohibited for any other reason other than want of notability. Wikipedia has lists of many things, lists of deceased people is really just another type of list. For the reasons given by Mhawk10, this list is notable. You can't get a more notable list of casualties than that from this event. Local Variable (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This article is both a directory and a memorial, both of which are against WP guidelines, as already pointed out. It's also massive, therefore unmergeable into any other article. I wouldn't object to a List of notable victims of the September 11 attacks, strictly limited to people who have their own biography article, but the current list does not belong to an encyclopedia. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no encyclopedic purpose, memorial and directory. This information exists on other websites and I see no reason to host it here. MB 16:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

References

  1. ^ "Names on the 9/11 Memorial". www.911memorial.org. National September 11 Memorial & Museum. Archived from the original on September 11, 2021. Retrieved May 27, 2022.
  2. ^ "List of Victims from Sept. 11, 2001 | Fox News". archive.ph. 2016-01-28. Archived from the original on 2016-01-28. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
  3. ^ Richards, Evelyn (2021-09-11). "Full list of the 2,977 victims who died during 9/11". Metro. Archived from the original on 2022-02-28. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
  4. ^ "The names of everyone who died in the 2001 Twin Towers attack". inews.co.uk. 2021-09-11. Archived from the original on 2021-12-29. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
  5. ^ Weigle, Lauren (2015-09-10). "Victims of September 11th Attacks: Full List of Names". Heavy.com. Archived from the original on 2021-12-29. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
  6. ^ Walker, Johnnie WalkerJohnnie. "List of Victims of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks". 600 ESPN El Paso. Archived from the original on 2015-09-15. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
  7. ^ Galloway, Aaron GallowayAaron. "List of Victims of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks". NewsTalk 1290. Archived from the original on 2018-09-05. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
  8. ^ WABC (2021-09-07). "2 more victims of 9/11 World Trade Center attacks identified". ABC7 New York. Archived from the original on 2021-09-17. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
  9. ^ "COPY-Victims list: a full list of all those killed in the September 11th attacks". WSFA12 News. Archived from the original on 2021-10-06. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
  10. ^ Kilgannon, Corey (2021-09-06). "'Reopening Old Wounds': When 9/11 Remains Are Identified, 20 Years Later". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 2021-09-06. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
  11. ^ AFP. "20 years later, two more victims of 9/11 attacks identified". www.timesofisrael.com. Archived from the original on 2021-09-09. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
  12. ^ "New DNA technique helps identify more victims of 9/11 attacks". the Guardian. Reuters. 2018-09-07. Archived from the original on 2020-11-09. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 00:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bicol Regional Science High School

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

Even with the downsides of Google and its preferences and weaknesses in mind, a WP:BEFORE only seems to suggest that this school fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 16:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no discussion of how this school meets the GNG or NORG per SCHOOLOUTCOMES.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point Idalawn, Indiana

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

PROD contested by @Jacona: based on finding information in newspapers.com; I've searched for this location in the same place twice and have only brought up real estate ads, real estate listings, auction notices, party announcements, 911 call reports, and two short pieces about an escaped lizard.

The minimal coverage present here indicates that this is a subdivision, and WP:GEOLAND does not extend down to the subdivision level. The real estate ads/listings and the passing mentions in the various reports/announcements don't count towards WP:GNG; and two short pieces about a (large) escaped lizard don't meet that bar themselves. Unless someone has better search terms than I do, I'm not seeing a way to justify notability here. Hog Farm Talk 14:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The story of a Magian love (Novel),

The story of a Magian love (Novel), (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book, refs are just plot summaries. A loose necktie (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi 1. Is an independent 2022 review of the work published in a major online magazine, 2. Is a lengthy 2017 review of the work by an independent writer in a cultural magazine, and 3. is likewise a lengthy 2018 review of the book in an Iraqi cultural magazine. None of them is PR or black hat SEO and all carry extensive literary and critical content. Mccapra (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see editorial policies or even a masthead for any of the three, considering how they're formatted like blogs. The third one has a sizable Facebook following but I'm struggling to get more on the background of the first two. Do they have Wikidata entries? czar 22:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Livin' Joy. TigerShark (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tameko Star

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

Search finds no significant independent secondary (e.g., not an interview) sources about Tameko Star. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although they have not participated here, the article creator appears to object to deletion, so treating this as ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Livin' Joy if no sources are found, but I have a hard time believing the lead singer of a band that charted worldwide has no independent coverage in reliable sources. However, as the group peaked in the 90s, it wouldn't be the type of search you'd perform on Google... versacespaceleave a message! 21:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 00:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When Love Comes Around the Bend

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

Non-notable song. Extensive WP:BEFORE in Newspapers.com (specific focus on The Tennesseean), AllMusic, World Radio History, and Billboard found no sources about the song. Redirect and prod both declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NSONG #3, as it was also recorded by Dan Seals on album Walking the Wire (album) (The Tennessean (Nashville, Tennessee)01 Aug 1992, Page 29)(Chicago Tribune (Chicago, Illinois)27 Aug 1992, Page 78), and many others. In fact it may be Seals' version which is more reviewed. Also recorded by Sweethearts of the Rodeo Beautiful Lies (Sweethearts of the Rodeo album) (Argus-Leader (Sioux Falls, South Dakota)03 Oct 1996, Page 45). 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. there appear to be plenty of sources around has never been sufficient when sources haven't been checked to indicate they meet GNG. No one has substantively refuted the nominee's assertion that they don't. Star Mississippi 14:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stichtse Vrije School

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

Fails WP:GNG. I see listings, statistics and social media but nothing in-depth. Unsourced, but kept in 2014 The Banner talk 13:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Netherlands. AHatd (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it was kept in 2014 largely due to a policy which then existed that worked on the basis of all secondary schools being notable. This ceased to be a policy several years ago and despite the article on NL wikipedia being significantly more developed, I am not actually seeing any sources on it. Due to any sourcing likely being non-English, I couldn't really say if it's notable or not. I'd probably lean delete as things stand. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can read the Dutch sources, but that adds nothing to what I wrote in the nomination. The Banner talk 15:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @The Banner: Fair enough, I hadn't noted you are a native dutchman! Alas, you'd be in a fairly good position to identify them better than say myself (although do you have access to historic dutch newspapers too?). My point is that it may be harder for participants of enwiki to do an appropriate WP:BEFORE search, but even with that said, I would still lean in favour of delete. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to United States–Venezuela relations#United States interference allegations. valid AtD since it's mentioned there Star Mississippi 14:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Balboa

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The whole subject seems to be built exclusively around a claim made by Hugo Chávez in an interview, and the interviewer himself, Ted Koppel, recognizes that he never received proof of Chávez's accusations, even after he promised to do so and several requests, as stated in the article.

The original Operation Balboa was a war game conducted by Spain, which in itself lacks any notability. Any noteworthy content is already covered in the United States–Venezuela relations#United States interference allegations section.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Pliers (2nd nomination) for a similar case. NoonIcarus (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monther Darwish

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

Fails to WP:ENT, and the majority of the sources used are mostly paid and promotional, such as "khabar3ajeldubai" and "news-future", I didn't see anything significant to write an article about him. فيصل (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has also been deleted from the Arabic Wikipedia.--فيصل (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 14:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Farah Alhaddad

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

All the awards and nominations are insignificant. There are paid and promotional sources in the article sucs as "hashtag-iq". Fails to Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also, This article has also been deleted from the Arabic Wikipedia.-- فيصل (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1: Hi, Thank you for your opinion, as an Arab, I can assure you that reliable Arabic sources for "Farah Alhaddad" are very scarce, and all the prizes mentioned are not important or famous, there are just a play with words to make the reader think that the character achieves notability. For example, can you provide me the website for the "Miss Middle East award"? I'm sure you won't be able to, because the award is not important and doesn't even have an official website. As I explained to you earlier that the sources are very scarce in Arabic, I searched for her name on Google specifically in the news section, and the sources are almost non-existent.--فيصل (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_June_27&oldid=1095237829"