Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 07	July 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PharmEasy

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

As per WP:NCORP there should be multiple independent sources of deep coverage with in-depth information on the company. I was not able to find any such references. Alphaonekannan (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Alphaonekannan (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage in independent sources. Likely to be a listed entity [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: As per above, and it seems that company is one of the largest player in Online Pharmacy in India[7] and perhaps has gone public too, therefore, a case for strong keep emerges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User4edits (talk • contribs)
Comment: WP:LISTED listed states that Consensus has been that notability is not automatic for listed companies. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. I was not able to find any evidence to prove that this is a listed company. Company is one of the largest player in Online Pharmacy in India. How does this make it notable. You are arguing that notability is inherited. Companies must meet WP:SIRS to establish notability as notability is not independent. Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverages were provided by Redtigerxyz, and article was nominated for deletion by a banned user. Elbatli (talk) 22:54, 11 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shayana Windsor

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What’s said above is true CreecregofLife (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Captains a leading domestic team, has played for her country at both junior and adult levels. Considerable local match coverage featuring her goals in international matches and to a lesser extent her club role. I've used the coverage to expand the article a bit. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir.--MonFrontieres (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has played for the Cayman Islands women's national football team and, thus, meets WP:FOOTYN (Players are deemed notable if they have played FIFA recognised senior international football). -The Gnome (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a depreciated criteria which no longer exists. Your argument is no longer valid. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. Changing suggestion to Delete, per WP:SPORTBASIC. -The Gnome (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed we now need a pass of WP:GNG and we do not pass WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @Yngvadottir:. Also, I found more sources online that show she is notable in Cayman Islands besides captaining the national team, such as 1. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do think she passes GNG on the basis of a plethora of mentions, of which I'm assuming I didn't find some; there appear to be several Cayman Islands newspapers/news sites, with patchy archives online, and I kept being limited to full view of only one article and having to use Google cache or something. But from the details I suspect that scholarship announcement is someone else of the same name. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Passing mentions in routine sports recaps, especially in local papers, and especially for youth events, do not amount to GNG and are explicitly rejected by NSPORT. Every decent high school athlete will have a "plethora of mentions", and most will have far more extensive coverage than what we have here.

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Cayman Compass 1		Routine sports recap	✘ No
CONCACAF 1	governing sports orgs are never independent	?	✘ No
Cayman Sports Buzz		half a sentence in a routine recap of a high school match	✘ No
Cay 3 sports		half a sentence in routine match recap	✘ No
Cayman Compass 2	but note it is not independent of the other Cayman Compass coverage	mention in routine match recap	✘ No
GSA stats db	?	sports dbs are never SIGCOV	✘ No
CONCACAF 2			✘ No
Cayman Loop news	press release from scholarship org	two sentences listing high school classes	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

JoelleJay (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - JoelleJay's source analysis table sums up the situation perfectly. A plethora of passing mentions but no actual significant detail in any of the available sources. No prejudice against a copy being stored in user or draft space given the age of the player, could potentially be notable in the future. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable footballer. Indianfootball98 (talk) 13:26, 3 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamoy Phillips

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:29, 8 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!} 05:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neesah Godet

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:29, 8 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!} 05:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irlanda Lopes

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:29, 8 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavans Vidya Mandir, Elamakkara

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

NO significant coverage and fails GNG. ChristinaNY (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ChristinaNY (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Kerala. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Fails GNG. --Bears (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG Kazanstyle (talk) 17:21, 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. As in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrative divisions of the Donetsk People's Republic: The "keep" case is weak: it makes reference only to publications by this self-declared government. These are not sources that are independent from the subject of the article, and therefore not reliable sources. In the absence of such sources, WP:V mandates deletion. Sandstein 09:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative divisions of the Luhansk People's Republic

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

This is an unreferenced fork of Luhansk People's Republic#Administrative divisions, which cites only unreliable sources; unencyclopedic; it’s like WP:SYNTH but not from reliable sources, giving the appearance of legitimacy to a fake country; borderline WP:HOAX. This information is not found in WP:reliable sources

This is a detailed expansion of a decree by the “authorities” in a Russian puppet state in Ukraine about territories they only partially control, which can be summed up in a single line in the main article: “the DNR authorities issued a decree rejecting Ukraine's 2020 reform of administrative divisions in Luhansk Oblast and only recognize the older division into raions: see Administrative divisions of Luhansk Oblast#Administrative divisions until 2020.”

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Michael Z. 03:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. ~~The state statistical service~~ A decree of the head of LNR is a reliable source for the administrative division of LNR - which currently controls the entirety of Luhansk oblast. The official Ukrainian administrative division is different and it should be, and is, described in another article. The fact that LNR isn't recognised is irrelevant, other unrecognised states have articles about their administrative divisions, e.g., Administrative divisions of Somaliland. Alaexis_¿question? 08:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A single primary source doesn’t indicate WP:Notability of the subject. You think the encyclopedia needs an article on every decree signed by Pasechnik? —Michael Z. 14:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the question is about the notability of the topic, I think that there is a precedent in Wikipedia that the administrative division of states, including unrecognised ones, is a notable topic.

By the way, multiple Russian secondary sources reported on this decree, e.g. Interfax. Alaexis_¿question? 17:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russian sources are under a draconian régime of censorship, and are not reliable on Ukraine, the Russian war in Ukraine, or the Kremlin’s proxies there. If only Russian sources report on this, then that is not an indicator of WP:Notability (and perhaps a positive counter-indication), which requires sources “that are independent of the subject.” See Media freedom in Russia#Coverage on Ukraine. —Michael Z. 14:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as Per Alaexis Cryw 9 (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Again, this article is both (1) useless and (2) fringe. It should be deleted promptly. The comparison to Somaliland is extremely offensive. Apples to oranges, people. Somaliland isn't a puppet state of some larger empire. It is a part of the ethnic-Somali realm that broke away due to a civil dispute with other Somalis in the rest of Somalia, essentially. There is no obvious foreign agent operating in Somaliland; their cause for independence is almost entirely domestic. The same cannot be said about Luhansk PR, which has been firmly under Russia's grip from the very beginning. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:02, 29 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) 20:36, 30 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. The "keep" case is weak: it makes reference only to publications by this self-declared government. These are not sources that are independent from the subject of the article, and therefore not reliable sources. In the absence of such sources, WP:V mandates deletion. Sandstein 19:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative divisions of the Donetsk People's Republic

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

This is an unreferenced fork of Donetsk People's Republic#Administrative divisions, which cites only unreliable sources; unencyclopedic; it’s like WP:SYNTH but not from reliable sources, giving the appearance of legitimacy to a fake country; borderline WP:HOAX. This information is not found in WP:reliable sources

This is a detailed expansion of a decree by the “authorities” in a Russian puppet state in Ukraine about territories they only partially control, which can be summed up in a single line in the main article: “the DNR authorities issued a decree rejecting Ukraine's 2020 reform of administrative divisions in Donetsk Oblast and only recognize the older division into raions: see Administrative divisions of Donetsk Oblast#Administrative divisions until 2020.”

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Michael Z. 03:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources cited, and much of this territory is not even in their control. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A decree of the head of DPR is a reliable source for the administrative division of DPR - which currently controls most of Donestk oblast. The official Ukrainian administrative division is different and it should be, and is, described in another article. The fact that DPR isn't recognised is irrelevant, other unrecognised states have articles about their administrative divisions, e.g., Administrative divisions of Somaliland. Alaexis_¿question? 08:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The self-published decree by Kremlin proxies is only a source on the decree, and not on facts. It can be summarized by a single sentence in a parent article. I can publish a decree that I am the King of Siam, but that doesn’t rate a Wikipedia article. WP:Notability requires “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” The self-appointed head of the DNR is the subject, not a WP:reliable source.

The Somaliland list, not article, has not be assessed, and cannot be used as a precedent. It appears to lack reliable secondary sources. —Michael Z. 15:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as Per Alaexis Cryw 9 (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article (1) serves no tangible purpose and (2) can be described as fringe. The comparison between Donetsk PR and Somaliland is quite frankly offensive. The Somaliland situation is entirely different; it is a civil dispute with Somalia, with no obvious foreign interference. On the other hand, Donetsk PR is clearly a puppet state of Russia in Ukraine, which classifies it as an example of Russian imperialism rather than a civil Ukrainian dispute. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:53, 29 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 14:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Hancock (YouTuber)

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

This Youtuber does not meet WP criteria for WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST. The article sourcing consists of blogs, user-submitted content or non-independent content. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Visual arts, and Technology. Netherzone (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bruh GrayNG (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody can provide evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, which I have been unable to find. Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Torrent-Freak article about the legal DMCA tussle he was involved with and the others given in the article are just enough for GNG I think. This also [8], this [ https://reclaimthenet.org/meatcanyon-bugs-bunny-wabbit-season-copyright-claim/], and another Torrent Freak about the result of the lawsuit [ https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-refuses-to-process-dmca-counternotice-for-creepy-bugs-cartoon-200328/]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't sources, they are three blogs. Netherzone (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree sourcing is problematic, notability is absent. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:54, 15 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 this locality does not meet either GEOLAND or otherwise the GNG. My feeling is also that mentioning it in a "parent" article would be UNDUE and that redirecting isn't needed, however that is somewhat outside of the scope of an AfD close. firefly ( t · c ) 16:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Park, Indiana

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

Taking this one to AFD as searching is a bit more difficult than normal. While "Walker Park" is apparently a common name for municipal parks in Indiana (there appears to be one in the South Bend area and another out by Evansville), this specific location appears to be about this set of vacation homes. Vacation homes don't meet WP:GEOLAND and I haven't turned up anything that would indicate this specific spot meets WP:GNG, so taking here. Hog Farm _Talk 03:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hog Farm _Talk 03:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>> Tippecanoe Township, Kosciusko County, Indiana, where it is listed. Djflem (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a generic non-notable subdivision, it shouldn't even be mentioned on the township page. Reywas92^Talk 13:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:GEOLAND: If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. Djflem (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also the consideration of WP:UNDUE - GEOLAND doesn't require us to mention a subject if mentioning it would be undue detail in the higher-scale article. Through my research into the Indiana places, I've determined that there's frankly so many of these little housing developments/resort homes/etc that there simply isn't a way to mention them all in a township or county article without providing grossly undue weight, even in list form. Hog Farm _Talk 22:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The stated policy has noting to do with the above so that's a big stretch. What are the points of view being presented and how are they not balanced in their presentation, when actually, there no point of view being presented? Geoland doesn't say that at all either. Djflem (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're at a bit of cross purposes - I'm arguing that a set of vacation homes isn't due weight to mention in the township article due to the sheer number of these things, while your statement above seems to be explicitly arguing for inclusion of this material citing GEOLAND? Hog Farm _Talk 23:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that there are guidelines. Using UNDUE incorrectly and fudging on NGEO because it's inconvenient are not really AfD arguments. Djflem (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- There are infinite places on the planet, we are not obligated to mention every non-notable housing development whose only sources are database entries. We have no information to include beyond its existence as a few nondescript streets of houses like the subdivision I grew up in – that's not what Wikipedia is for. There are dozens more such subdivisions both in unincorporated Kosciusko County and nearby incorporated Warsaw, and this theory would just clutter our pages with crap. Reywas92^Talk 03:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many ideas about Wikipedia is for and crap, but this is an AfD discussion not an opinion poll or place to share irrelevant user biographic details Djflem (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too grew up in a housing development in the United States! Dear reader, where did you grow up? :) --Doncram (talk) 15:59, 10 July 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, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I considered this to be without any clear consensus, especially after 3+ week period of no activity, however at the nominator's request, I have reverted to allow an explicit outcome from one of those expressed above to be enacted. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, non-legally-recognized subdivision. Mentioning at the township level would indeed be UNDUE. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a non-notable, run-of-the-mill housing subdivision. Redirecting to the township article is not recommended. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:16, 2 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman Cruisers

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

Does not meet WP:ORG guidelines. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed it does not - and the invitation "for a full list of models available, including their variations, visit the official Freeman Cruiser website" does not belong on Wikipedia!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The 2014 AfD involved little more than an inconclusive discussion about whether to draftify, and didn't establish notability. The article hasn't improved since. I am hesitant about discarding an article on a marque, but that is just an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument. There is no article on Sheridan Marine, who have provided servicing for almost 40 years, so no WP:ATD target, which leaves us with the question of whether Freemans is notable, and searches are not finding the coverage needed to demonstrate that notability was attained. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 20 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dayo Israel

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

BLP of an unsuccessful political candidate who is an activist and party functionary but does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 2017 Afd was evidently correct to Delete the article at the time. Since then, however, both career and number of sources have substantially risen. Subject passes WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But almost the entire article is about what he did up to 2017. The two sentences about what happened since 2017 are ”He was appointed as a permanent member of the Lagos State Universal Basic Education Board, board in 2019 by the Lagos state governor and in March 2022 was elected as the APC national youth leader through a consensus selection”. That’s all. Those two sentences are sourced but neither are about appointments that would make him notable. Mccapra (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The subject wasn’t appointed as APC National youth leader but elected as he had other competitive contestants but they were forced to concede. Kaizenify (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Members of things vote for leaders all the time but that doesn’t make any of them notable. That is run-of-the-mill activity in any party or political organisation. Mccapra (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 2017 AfD discussed the sourcing of the article and found it to be insufficient. Let's look back at that discussion:

Ref 1. The Ynaija interview only quotes Mr. Israel and does not add any independent research. As such it is effectively a self-published source and not verifiable.

Ref 2. Similarly, the Punch interview also goes no further than quoting Mr. Israel.

Ref 3. The Youth Hub Africa blog feature does mention his history of starting a children's rights organization (GAAVOHCR - possibly notable) at age 11 and being sponsored as a delegate to attend two UN conferences. Attendance alone however, is not notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia.

Ref 4. The Vivacity PR (Public Relations) blog page states Mr. Israel was the GLEEHD Foundation's Nigeria Director, and headed the Nigerian delegation on a visit to London, but a blog is not a WP:RS and going to meetings (even at Buckingham Palace) does not infer any inherent notabilty.

Ref 5. The Handle It Africa page is a self-published (or written) publicity site, not RS.

Ref 6. Is the text of a speech he gave to STM. SPS, not RS.

Ref 7. Only states that he was "active" in civil society activities - nothing notable.

Ref 8. The London Metropolitan University alumni profile is RS and supports his educational achievements (LLB, MA). It also mentions Dayo's own television show (possibly notable).

Ref 9. Is his own website, not RS.

Ref 10. Naij.com probably RS, but participating in a youth parliament and leading a visit by children to the UN does not make him notable.

Ref 11. Konnect Africa re-hashes the other websites.

Ref 12. Daily Media reads like a CV, not independent journalism.

Ref 13. Another Punch interview, essentially SPS.

Ref 14-18. It is not notable to have declared an intent to run for office and then fail to be nominated by the party for the ticket.

That was User:Loopy30 five years ago. And what sources do we have now? Ynaija, Punch, KonnectAfrica, London Metropolitan University. It's groundhog day! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to source analysis by Alexandermcnabb. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject meet WP:NPOL as he is “local political figure who have received significant coverage considering his emergence as the All Progressive Congress (the ruling party in Nigeria) National youth leader which he happens to be the youngest and the first from South west Nigeria meets them. Also passes WP:GNG; with multiple independent, reliable sources discussing him. Kaizenify (talk) 08:52, 20 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) 20:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NPOL is clear and Mccapra is correct that the person does not meet the guideline. Lightburst (talk) 02:16, 6 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 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. Sourcing suggested to exist has never been sufficient to keep, but there's not a particularly strong delete consensus here either, but I find one exists. Star Mississippi 02:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prospect Tower (Milwaukee)

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

I see nothing notable about this building, a WP:MILL apartment building. Even the article characterizes it as "one of several large apartment buildings on Prospect Avenue". MB 02:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Wisconsin. MB 02:08, 24 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!} 02:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MILL is just an essay. I've added a reference, which refers to a newspaper article from construction. While I haven't been able to find any newspaper coverage with newspapers.com, the source I added suggests that it does exist. Thus, I think there is enough coverage out there to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a building entirely undistinguished on its own, entirely lacking in independent notability. WP:MILL expands fairly well on what is trivially non-notable but we do not need it to see what is not going on. We find no sources; we only find "there-must-be-sources" type of arguments. And claims that "it exists". -The Gnome (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Celebrated architecture? No. Outstanding of its kind? As pointed out above, 'one of a number' so, No. Fails WP:GNG? Yes. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of those things has anything to do with GNG... NemesisAT (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they did. It's not architecturally significant, it's not outstanding AND it fails WP:GNG. Trust that's clearer. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:39, 15 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!} 02:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gamini Abeysekera

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, apart from his obituary all the other references are merely mentions in passing. Dan arndt (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bilateral relations, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. Dan arndt (talk) 00:17, 24 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!} 02:04, 1 July 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 02:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Subject has plenty of publications, but I couldn't find any in-depth coverage about the subject himself. Could not corroborate "advisor to the Prime Minister of Thailand" with any mention in Thai sources, using multiple spellings in Thai. That said, the bulk of his work was pre-internet, so this is not conclusive. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another "advisor." Just another poorly sourced text. Just another promotional brochure. Just another article created by someone banned from Wikipedia for engaging in spam. Ho hum. -The Gnome (talk) 19:27, 14 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 04:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moses (Coldplay song)

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

I would like to nominate this article for deletion because is not a very notable release: Its details can be boiled down to a text on their discography page, it has not been certified gold or higher in at least one country, it has not won or been nominated for a major music award and only made into minor charts in the US. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 02:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It charted on 3 separate Billboard charts, including the top 10 of one of them. I'm guessing with that sort of chart performance that sourcing is probably out there, even if it's locked away in paper sources because it's a 2003 song... Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Content-wise the article could use some expansion, but the song being officially pushed as a single to radio and (as noted above) subsequently ranking on three Billboard charts (and I'd dispute these being strictly minor or insignificant – Alternative Airplay, for one, is a fairly notable chart in its own right with a well-documented history covered in both primary and third-party [e.g.] sources, and at the time of this song's release was one of Billboard's primary single charts for the rock genre), including becoming a top ten hit on one of them, strikes me as grounds for notability here. Holiday56 (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject lacking independent notability. This seems as good a time as any to revisit WP:NSONG. Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. For this song, we strive to find sources testifying to the above but we come up empty. -The Gnome (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 02:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good grief, I can't believe I'm setting out to help save a Coldplay song, but here we are. The guidelines on this one are achingly clear, folks WP:NALBUM tells us "The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart" and three Billboard chart placements later, they're over the bar and whingeing their way to notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is debuting in a chart enough though? Everything about this song can be merged with Coldplay Live 2003. Aside from Coldplay I'm a Taylor Swift fan and I don't think all of her Hot 100 entries warrant a page of their own. "Moses" case is even "worse", it entered three side-charts, not Billboard's flagship one. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 13:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is about a song and not an album, Alexandermcnabb. -The Gnome (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every album has a Singles section, I don't see how "Moses" can't be summarized to a paragraph to the point of warranting its own article. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does the fact that an album has a section with the songs it contains have anything to do with the level of notability any of the songs in an album has? Also, about "summarizing": We can create a paragraph about every song in existence! But,again, this does not mean the song is notable enough to have its own, separate article. -The Gnome (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hola The Gnome - I view that guideline - lacking any specific guideline to 'singles' as such - as pertaining to any music recording rather than as specifically an 'album' an 'EP' or a 'song'... There are many holes in the sock that is WP guidelines... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a guideline about songs. The category of songs includes songs that have been released as singles and songs that have not. So, it's an all-inclusive category. (Your point about a "sock" is unclear. If what you mean is that there is an issue with the relevant guideline, what we should do is bring it up for discussion; not ignore it.) -The Gnome (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any proof that supports your argument, please? "There are sources" is not an argument. -The Gnome (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commonsense goes a long ways too though. Songs don't hit the top 10 of a noteworthy chart and not get a handful of articles written about them. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense can also be used to argue how this page received less than 250 edits since its creation 17 years ago. Coldplay didn't even released a studio version for this song. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That has no bearing on anything relevant to deletion discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 22:20, 17 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!} 01:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Ngwu Eze

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

BLP of uncertain notability. His day job as press secretary is not notable, but it gives him press access so there is quite a bit of low-grade (not in-depth) coverage of him, including some new projects he seems keen to publicise. His notability as a poet rests on whether the award he won is sufficiently notable, which looks doubtful to me. Overall this article looks to me like part of a pr drive for his new career in music. Mccapra (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The award is not bluelinked, so unlikely to be notable (and reviews for poetry are hard to get, but in this case there's only one and it seems very, well, 'laudatory'). As nomination states, other than as a putative poet there's nothing to see here. As a poet, his command of metaphor is interesting, apparently being 'the ripe boil on society’s nose'. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:00, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Rajendra Singh

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

Ruler of Baghal State from 1946 to 1948 (when the state acceded to the India). The only source available has issues: It says that he was elected to the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Suni/Sunni constituency for 8 years. but the Assembly only lasted from 1952 to 1956, when the assembly was dissolved. Another point is that this ECI source says that another person, viz. Sita Ram, won from the Suni constituency in 1952. The subject has a very common Indian name, which leads to a lot of search results which are not related to him. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Himachal Pradesh, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I concur that it is dubious whether or not he was elected to the assembly; another point of contention I found is that the article says he ruled until 1971, but the article for Baghal State says he ruled until 1947. Regardless, as the leader of a Princely state, he passes WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 1971/1948 point is explained by Privy Purse in India#Abolition. After 1948, the state merged with India, but the ruler was allowed to keep his title. After 1971, this too was abolished. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

It seems a bit ambiguous whether rulers can be counted as politicians, and hence pass NPOL, but if there is previous consensus on this, then maybe NPOL can be tweaked a bit to make it clearer. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean he was a head-of-state, so I would presume that qualifies under NPOL#1 as being a national office. Curbon7 (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that there should probably be clarification. I was able to find WP:Articles for deletion/Khande Rao Holkar where (if you ignore the socking) Necrothesp also makes the argument that a ruler = NPOL. On the other hand, I also saw your previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher Muhammad Khan of Malerkotla, which had similar rulers of Princely states end in redirect. However, both AfDs had minimal participation. Might need an RfC. Curbon7 (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems clear that heads of state are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 11 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. and I don't see one on the horizon given language issues and time frame. Suggest if editors are interested, a conversation could continue editorially as to whether a merger would be appropriate and where to given multiple targets identified in this discussion. Star Mississippi 13:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xiangkhouang rebellion (1834)

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

Not sure if this event satisfies WP:GNG. The book source provided only dedicates one paragraph (beginning of p. 147) to the rebellion and its immediate context. I can't find any other sources that cover this rebellion or even mention it in passing. Indeed, most of the article as-is covers a broader scope of history—information which may reside better elsewhere—and does not provide additional details on the rebellion. Happy to reconsider if additional (e.g., foreign-language) sources with significant coverage turn up. ComplexRational (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Laos, and Vietnam. ComplexRational (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one sentence of that article actually deals with the subject. Which is pretty much a copy/paste from the source https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Kingdoms_of_Laos/hSxTAQAAQBAJ (Search inside for "1834"). That sentence if anything could be included in the 'aftermath' section of Lao rebellion (1826–1828) JeffUK (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as more sources are likely to exist. The content in The Kingdoms of Laos, though brief, suggests the event was significant. It reads in full:

"In 1834, the people of Xieng Khouang were driven to revolt, but the rebellion was put down with such brutality that whole areas of the kingdom were depopulated. The Siamese promised asylum on the Right Bank of the Mekong, but when some 6,000 people crossed the river they learnt that they were to be deported to areas around Bangkok. 3,000 tried to return, but when they did so, they found in their old homelands only a desert patrolled by Vietnamese soldiers. Most of those who tried to return perished."

Failing that, Merge the "Rebellion" and "Later events" sections into Lao rebellion (1826–1828) and Redirect to the same. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This mentions the deportation of 6000 Phuan in 1834, based on another source (presumably Thai) from 1959. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably https://library.soas.ac.uk/Record/569922 this. But it seems to be the only source that mentions the event. So I'm not sure it's significant coverage. It's literally a footnote. JeffUK (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-comment As the above passage indicates, the correct name appears to be "Xieng Khouang" (note spaces and spelling). I do get hits but not necessarily enough to justify a separate article as opposed to a passage in some broader topic. Mangoe (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in absence of identified significant coverage. Arguments along the lines of there must be sources are not persuasive (see WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST). The single-paragraph length discussions do not, in my view, reach significant coverage. All that said, I'll happily change my !vote if someone actually identifies the missing WP:SIGCOV. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the above passage from the article as it was very clearly 'close paraphrasing' of the 'Simms' source. Same sentence structure, just swapping out words in a few places. There's now very little left about the actual event except background and aftermath! JeffUK (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe Snit Smuckarn and Kennon Breazeale, A Culture in Search of Survival: The Phuan of Thailand and Laos (Yale University Southeast Asian Studies, 1988), cover this, but have no access at the moment. The page could be expanded to cover the whole Thai–Phuan conflict and renamed accordingly. Srnec (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully, a consensus will arise after a week's relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You get more value for searching Xiang Khouang as two words, but even these results mostly refer to the 1827 event, although it appears to have been one of a number of revolts involving the Siamese. It's all pretty involved and way outside my comfort zone, TBH, but sense would seem to be to port the pared back and salient content (ie: the one sentence) from this article to Xiangkhouang#History and delete this. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thai sources describe the event not as a local rebellion but as part of the war between Siam and Vietnam. The event is currently covered in Wikipedia at Muang Phuan#History and Siamese–Vietnamese War (1831–1834)#Northern Fronts, and either would be a better redirect target than the 1826 rebellion, if redirecting is to be the outcome. There are extensive sources discussing the forced resettlement of the Phuan population (and the wider depopulation of the Lao hinterland) by Siam, but it's quite a different topic. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A rebellion, even a failed rebellion, that resulted in 6,000 refugees is obviously notable. This wouldn't even be a question in any Western country. SpinningSpark 16:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Muang Phuan#History, per my above comment. Sources are scarce that explicitly describe event as a rebellion, and basically everything in the current article is already there. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:58, 20 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. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An Boyun

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

Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. – Ploni (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Korea. Ploni (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ploni has nominated 18 authors for deletion since Wednesday, all with very brief rationales like this one. The article says that she's won multiple literary awards, and the nominator has made no effort to explain why we should discount those. pburka (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. As it stands, all of the article's references are to her publisher's website ([9], [10], [11]) or the online bookstore YES24 ([12]), which sells her books. The Munhakdongne Writer Award is given out by her publisher, while I've been unable to find significant coverage of The Jaeum & Moeum Literature Prize (자음과모음 청소년문학상, which appears to be for works by youth). –Ploni (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, Ploni, it would be ideal if you could offer a similar analysis for each AFD nomination rather than just stating that the bio doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or "Appears to fail WP:GNG." Editors who respond to AFD nominations have to put in work to look at the existing sources and maybe search for new sources so the nominator should as well. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 30 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!} 22:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does appear to fail both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. While winning certain awards was a criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (artists) (failed proposal), that is a failed proposal which did not gain consensus and is not recognized on Wikipedia as a consideration for notability and WP:AUTHOR does not list awards as an indicator of notability. However even within the context of that failed proposal, neither the Munhakdongne Writer Award nor the Jaeum & Moeum Literature Prize appear to be notable awards in any respect. I was able to find a few scant mentions of the author An Boyun online but they were all Wordpress blog interviews and other unreliable sources. I will say, however, that it is difficult to find information under the name An Boyun, in part because searches online keep turning up Turkish phrases such as "Tanrı'ya her an boyun eğin" which translates to "Submit to God at all times" as well as countless other Turkish sentences which happen to contain "...an boyun..." as part of the sentence, even when adding words such as "author" to the search query. I went pretty far into the search results but I will concede that it is possible that there are search results being buried under the weight of unrelated Turkish phrases that I just wasn't able to find. There is also the fact that An Boyun is a South Korean author who writes in Korean, a language which I do not speak. That means I'm potentially ignorant of an entire language's worth of potential sources that I just can't read. With that in mind I am saying that I do not consider the article notable with the information I have on hand. If someone is able to find additional sources or information, please share it here and ping me and I will gladly reassess what I have said. But with what I know and was able to find, the article just doesn't meet the standards or either WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. - Aoidh (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject's failing the notability criterion, as shown in Aoidh's exemplary forensics. It's a purely promotional text filled with fluff, such as "her works are filled with such violence". For some reason, the creator of the page posted up in 2017 an avalanche of poorly sourced texts about South Korean poets. But first things first. -The Gnome (talk) 18:33, 14 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 withdrawn by nominator. This is a combined non-admin close by myself and the nominator, who missed a few steps.(non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Singles 1999–2006

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

I would like to nominate this article for deletion because The Singles 1999–2006 is not a very notable release: It has not appeared on any country's national music chart, it has not been certified gold or higher in at least one country and it has not won or been nominated for a major music award. Additionally, if you look Coldplay discography, you will notice details about this boxset can already be found there. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 01:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per WP:NALBUM, the album does not have to satisfy all the requirements such as charting and certifications. If it received reviews and other reliable media coverage, that can suffice. This album received a profile in NME (currently footnote #3). The article relies on a couple of old hard copy reviews that I cannot verify (and Q Magazine is out of business), but if anyone can verify those, then this article might be eligible for keeping. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The NME review is https://www.nme.com/reviews/reviews-coldplay-8352-333269; it looks like Q magazine didn't publish its reviews online but https://web.archive.org/web/20070429213329/http://www.q4music.com/nav?page=q4music.about.currentissue mentions that there was a review. Peter James (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (I already commented above.) The nominator is working to clean up a lot of obscure quickie Coldplay items, and that is okay but this one was a legitimate wide-market release that attracted some pro reviews. Thanks to Peter James above for tracking down some evidence. I think this article needs to be cleaned up and expanded with prose from the pro reviewers, but it qualifies as a viable stub. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep this article (which I'm obviously not very keen on), I would like to remove it from the chronology or at least making a separate one for the studio albums, all of these side-relases, which as you noted, are "obscure quickie items" make the current chronology harder to navigate. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 16:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's valid, and cleaning up the chronology is something you could do as a general editing effort, regardless of whether any of the articles in question are kept or deleted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just cleaned up the chronology today. I would like to withdrawn my nomination, is it possible? GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have announced that you're withdrawing the nomination, anybody could wrap this up with a non-admin close. I probably shouldn't because I'm an involved voter. If that doesn't happen or if anyone else wants to vote/comment, an Admin will make it official on around July 15 or so. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 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 merge to Tripuri dances. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Owa dance

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

Unsourced, non-notable, single sentence stub which has not been edited in any meaningful way since 2013. A cursory search indicates only passing mentions to the dance in associations with other dances. I am reworking the page Tripuri dances and will give it a mention there, but it does not warrant its own article at the present time. Fritzmann (message me) 01:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and India. Fritzmann (message me) 01:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV. I would have said merge, but there is nothing in the article to merge. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short mentions (1, 2), but doesn't meet GNG as they aren't significant. The stub also lacks any refs. VickKiang (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Doesn't seem to be much information available about it to justify a separate article, a redirect and merge into Tripuri dances seems appropriate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tripuri dances. I tried to find some information about the dance, but all that came up is that it is a traditional dance of the Mog people, presumably performed during the Owa festival. maybe there is an offline source somewhere that discusses the dance in detail... Aymatth2 (talk)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Clare's Senior Secondary School, Agra

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. There's hope for this type of avalanche, still. -The Gnome (talk) 18:26, 14 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!} 02:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transrational

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

Prodded twice, both times because it is wholly redundant to Precognition. As it stands, it is largely a WP:DICDEF. 3 of the 6 references are by the inventor of the term, Ref. 5 is likely WP:PROFRINGE and may fail WP:SYNTH, and Ref. 6 is another Wikipedia article (Zaum) that uses the term, but almost certainly in a different meaning than this article. Not sure about Ref. 3, which is a book about dreams by Vine Deloria Jr., but I suspect that it is also profringe because he also wrote Red Earth, White Lies. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think they are saying it's the same as 'Precognition' so shouldn't be redirected; but It's a non-notable term invented by a non-notable person. and with sentences like "phenomena occurring within the natural universe where information and experiences does not readily fit into the typical cause and effect structure" is basically WP:Nonsense JeffUK (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of many woolly terms invented in a woolly area of thinking, with nothing about it that stands out. It's a simple enough coinage that it has probably been independently "invented" multiple times beyond the two given. XOR'easter (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transpersonal_psychology. This is probably what the neologism is related to. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:81D5:6D64:11E:646B (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an overly specific target for a fairly non-specific term. I lean toward delete. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 22:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable vague neologism with no extensive use among those who incline to this kind of thinking. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:39, 11 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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P. Amarasinghe

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The position of Deputy Governor of the Central Bank is not a notable position and neither is the Chairman of the People's Bank. Dan arndt (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 00:13, 1 July 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 01:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deputy Governor of a central bank would seem to me to be notable as would chairman of the "second largest commercial bank in Sri Lanka". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @Necrothesp:, the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka is a notable position but there is no precedent for the deputy to be considered automatically notable. As per WP:ANYBIO there is no sources that indicate any achievements that he made in this role. In fact the only references are merely mentions in passing. The same for his role as Chairman of the People's Bank. If there was significant coverage provided for either role I would be prepared to reconsider however I have done a relatively thorough search and can't find anything. Dan arndt (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:15, 25 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Albaqer Abdulrahman

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

Fails to WP:NSPORT, He hasn't played any first-level matches, nor does he play in a fully professional league. فيصل (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. فيصل (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSPORT, as he did not played at professional leagues.Alimovvarsu (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and not just WP:NSPORT. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of indiscriminately listed information. -The Gnome (talk) 17:50, 14 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of B105 personalities

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Has only 1 source and numerous non notable entries. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't to be used the same way https://www.hit.com.au/shows is. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Radio, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Nate. This is basically trivia. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Doctorhawkes: Listcruft is not a reason for deletion, it is someone's essay. Deus et lex (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per core content policies on lists, an integral part of the guideline on stand-alone lists. Fluff is fluff by any other name. This is pure, unadulterated individual work. -The Gnome (talk) 17:57, 14 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. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Yugoslavia

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

This article has no inline references, it has now been tagged with five major issues, and will continue to act as a magnet for controversial and biased polemics such as the ones at the end, unless we invoke WP:TNT or adequately source everything that is to remain herein. Elizium23 (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, non-neutral article, written from a perspective of one single book as a source, with absolutely no inline citations. Fbifriday (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see that this article needs a lot of work, but deletion is not cleanup WP:DINC and therefore for a notable topic (see WP:GNG, we should make the effort to improve it. We should consider also that we have comparable articles for most countries. And Wikipedia has mechanisms for removing specific problematic content. Evidence of notability of the topic:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb010386/full/html?skipTracking=true
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12347863/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080231259500131
https://www.citsee.eu/citsee-story/becoming-citizens-politics-women%E2%80%99s-emancipation-socialist-yugoslavia CT55555 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, we should not consider that we have other comparable articles for most countries. The article as written is biased, written from one POV, and would require a complete overhaul to balance it and add new content and sources. WP:TNT it and start over. Fbifriday (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point about WP:WHATABOUT - although that is an essay, an opinion, I respect it. But to say the essay is biased, is to assume bad faith. Please also consider that it might be not biased, and perhaps just at odds with your perspective on the subject. It includes quotes and perspectives from various scholars, and I've added in citations for most of them between your comment and this one, so it does include various points of view. I think the article has been over tagged. It does need some work. WP:TNT is another essay, one that I reject. It's easy to make bold improvements on wikipedia, I don't accept that it's necessary to delete things to improve them. If it needs a complete overhaul, I encourage others to also edit the article and overhaul it. Again, deletion is not cleanup. You should really be trying to argue that it's not a notable topic if you wanted to delete this, once I said it's a notable topic, that warrants a reply. Pointing out weaknesses is confirming that you think deletion is clean up. CT55555 (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/notification: I'm going to try and get some help improving the article: Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration CT55555 (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article needs a lot work. I easily found things like this news article [13] from 31 Oct 1975, titled International professional woman describes women's roles in Yugoslavia. The United Nations website has articles to search through as well. Digging through everything and rewriting the article will take significant work. Dream Focus 18:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, including due to the non-encyclopedic style and significant verifiability issues. WP:GNG also does not seem clearly supported at this time. There are sources about aspects of the topic, including via JSTOR, e.g. Women in the Yugoslav National Liberation Movement: An Overview, Women, Conflict, and Culture in Former Yugoslavia, and Becoming citizens: the politics of women’s emancipation in socialist Yugoslavia (University of Edinburgh), as well as Springer, e.g. The Woman Question and the First Wave of Feminism in Yugoslavia, The Strange Case of Yugoslav Feminism: Feminism and Socialism in “the East” and Cambridge: Women and Yugoslav Partisans. There is also Feminism and Yu: Feminist Magazines in Yugoslavia (Ms. Magazine), Serbs 'enslaved Muslim women at rape camps' (The Guardian), Feminism and violence against women in Yugoslavia during state socialism (T&F), Assault on the Soul: Women in the Former Yugoslavia (T&F), Women in Black Against the War in Yugoslavia. Sources could be used to improve the Yugoslavia article, until a WP:SPINOFF is supported. Beccaynr (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is clearly established by sources cited here and a cursory look on Google Scholar. The question remains whether the article is beyond repair, and whether a WP:TNT would be beneficial. I'm not seeing that here, I think the article has improved from hopeless to bad since the nomination. There are four decent sources. I don't see clear mistakes in the parts that are not yet cited. I'm more inclined to support TNT deletion when it has become really difficult to move foreward on an article, for instance because its made up entirely of unreliable sources / text-source discrepancies. I don't see that here. Femke (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a clear mistake in uncited parts of the article when there are descriptions of women as a monolith, e.g. "They hoped to become more economically independent", "They resisted the unjust wars". Also, in the WP:QUOTEFARM section of the article, the inclusion of "Romanian women are prostituting themselves for a single dollar in towns on the Romanian-Yugoslav border" seems problematic, and it is introduced as "The results of reactionary, right-wing measures adopted by the new nationalist states are vividly described by Drakulić." If there is WP:GNG support for the broad general topic instead of various aspects, I think research should be conducted first, then the article written, instead of an approach that may create further WP:NPOV issues in the structure of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are women everywhere, and many of them and many groups of them are deserving of articles, but if we just do "Women of X" for every country (and why not states, provinces, cities, professions, fields of study, etc.), it could get crazy. And should the article "Women of X" be a discussion of the state of women of X or a list of prominent women of X? It's hopelessly vague and invites bloated, unfocussed garbage. Jacona (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure, the topic is very broad. Lightburst (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename History of women in Yugoslavia. Also could use better sources, which do exist. I agee with and adopt the reasoning of User:CT55555 WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it were to be renamed, the entire Category:Women by former country would need to be renamed as well. I don't think any such renaming is necessary. -Vipz (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TNT-ing it may be a necessary step towards recreating a better article, though I'm not sure if anyone will be willing to do that. Beccaynr has laid out a good chunk of reliable sources. -Vipz (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my research, I think there are various aspects of the topic that are notable, e.g. Feminism in Yugoslavia, and the book How We Survived Communism and Even Laughed (the sources in this newly-added section of the article do not all appear to be related to the book, but it appears to have WP:NBOOK notability, e.g. Kirkus Reviews, Prairie Schooner, Social Indicators Research, Le Journal des Alternatives, Foreign Affairs capsule review). For the other book cited in this new section, Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism, it also appears to have WP:NBOOK notability, e.g. Guardian, New Yorker, Vox, see also Book Marks for additional reviews. A TNT approach that may work well for this broad topic is to instead develop the notable aspects based on the available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing its notability, but the issue is that the way the article was written was from one source's perspective. It would require a substantial overhaul to even tell this one from more than one perspective, rewriting most of the article to introduce the new sources and material, while balancing it with the material already there. A TNT approach allows the article to be rewritten from scratch, to include all viewpoints. It would also allow someone to start the article in a draft, then simply move it here when it is ready to go. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the motivation to create Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism! User:Beccaynr CT55555 (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think WP:TNT would be the best approach for this article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails the criterion of sourcing. All we have as citations are Barbara Jancar-Webster's book on Yugoslav women during the period 1941-45, a very limited one, and then a review of that book; a piece titled "Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism", which, apparently someone wants us to take seriously; then a book about gender politics in the Balkans. That's about it. Perhaps there is substantiation behind the void. For sure, it's best to start all over. -The Gnome (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism: And Other Arguments for Economic Independence is a notable book by a notable anthropologist Kristen Ghodsee that deals with women's rights and role in society. So, I doubt that I'm alone in indeed wanting you to take it seriously. Ghodsee is a professor of Russian and East European Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. CT55555 (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So...you're discounting a book from a PhD because she titled it to attract attention on the shelves? FrederalBacon (talk) 19:07, 14 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Knights Drum and Bugle Corps (2005)

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

Non-notable and defunct drum corps; unable to PROD because of a previously-contested PROD that was never followed up. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Arts, and California. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I found mentions of the actual Velvet Knights competition online, there's nothing to suggest that the 2005 competition was notable. Of the 3 sites used as references, one doesn't mention this subject, another is a dead URL, and the third is an archived copy of what was a blog. Not even close. Wes sideman (talk)
Delete. There are simply not sources out there. There is plenty of enthusiasm. But Wikipedia is not a listing of indiscriminate information nor a fan website. -The Gnome (talk) 18:21, 14 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 to delete as failing WP:NPOL. Some sources have been argued to show significant coverage, but they are relatively trivial mentions of her in articles regarding gun violence. TigerShark (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Rotering

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

This article fails WP:NPOL. Being a mayor of a small suburban town, or running unsuccessfully for higher office (not even making it to the general election) does not automatically confer notability. All of the sources cited either mention her in passing or are WP:ROUTINE local coverage. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per...well, pretty much the exact same reasons as the first AfD, she hasn't changed offices or become more notable in that timeframe. Having a notable event happen in her town does not make her notable herself. Fbifriday (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Nothing has changed since first AfD. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, or at least Redirect to Highland Park, Illinois: She has run in multiple elections since the 2016 AFD, and obviously the Highland Park shooting brought her into the national spotlight, so it's wrong to say that nothing has changed. Normally, I don't think the mayor of a Highland Park-sized suburb would be notable, but there are enough little things here that make me lean toward Keep. At one point, she was considered a serious candidate for the US House of Representatives and was endorsed by Dick Durbin, so she had some name recognition beyond her suburb. She has generated a sizable amount of press in the Chicago area, and there's still material available that could be used to expand the article (although, to be fair, the current article doesn't clearly distinguish between the real Chicago Tribune and the suburb-specific newspapers within the Tribune organization). We could get into arguments about whether the local coverage counts towards anything. Personally, I happen to think the coverage that exists is good enough, but I'm not interested in splitting hairs over that. In any case, I think Rotering at least deserves a mention at Highland Park, Illinois, so a redirect seems like the worst-case scenario. Zagalejo (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MrMemer223 (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD REPOST; as there doesn't seem to have been any change in notability since the last deletion discussion. She has run for higher office a few more times, each time losing in the primary before the general election. Many politicians repeatedly run for office and lose in the primaries, that doesn't make them notable, it just makes them persistent, and career politicos. A new redirect without history to Highland Park, Illinois can be created afterwards and protected against editing to prevent further recreation of a NN politico, if such a redirect is needed and desired. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CSD "REPOST" (WP:G4) does not apply because the article is not substantially identical to its version during the prior AfD. Rotering has run in a few more primaries since the last AfD, and a mass shooting occurred in her hometown. There has been enough news coverage about her since 2016 to overcome REPOST. Edge3 (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For the reasons that:
- This person has been around Illinois politics for a number of years, even though the only political office she has won has been mayor of Highland Park.
- I live in Illinois, and she is one of those people whom I know that I had heard of before but didn't exactly know who she was, and I suspect there are other WP users (not just editors, but users) who are in a similar situation as myself.
- The sad events of the past week have put her (at least temporarily) into a national news spotlight, and this page is a good means of summarizing who she is for users alluded to in the point above.
- I admit I had not observed that some of the articles used in citations were newspapers in the Tribune family, as opposed to in the Tribune itself, but those can be reviewed and adjusted (although in the current media environment I think there can be some gray areas in situations like that, about what is and is not the actual Tribune).
- I don't see how it makes Wikipedia worse to retain and improve this article, and I don't see how it makes Wikipedia better to delete it.
- Thanks to all for their contributions and let's discuss further as needed. KConWiki (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the suburban newspaper articles are valid sources. I just figured people in this AFD would be scrutinizing the sources, so I wanted to provide some clarity. (I agree that the online environment makes these distinctions a little fuzzy. Databases like ProQuest will list all of that stuff as coming from Chicago Tribune, when most of it probably appeared in physical form as part of the Highland Park News, or the Deerfield Review, or a similar paper.) Zagalejo (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, one topic that could be added to the article is Highland Park's existing assault weapon ban, which brought Rotering a bit of national attention long before the recent shooting. (Here's a 2015 CBS News report which briefly features Rotering.) The ban was challenged and went to the Supreme Court, but survived. Zagalejo (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sad event was deleted from her biography, apparently not significant enough to bother editing in, instead of deleting. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has been covered by the Chicago Tribune and its suburban subsidiaries. WP:NPOL does not require sources to have a non-local audience, so her coverage is sufficient. Edge3 (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the coverage is incidental to recent events there. For mayors we should absolutely insist on coverage outside the readership area and over a broad amount of time, such conditions are not met here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: There are some national sources cited above by @Zagalejo, concerning Highland Park's assault weapon ban. That coverage pre-dates the parade shooting. Additionally, Rotering is now getting national news coverage for her advocacy for legislation on assault weapons: PBS News Hour interview, Politico's Illinois Playbook, and Politico's article on Rotering's attendance at a White House event. Edge3 (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As she is a notable person:

Noting the reliance on interviews above, also:

I could go on, but there really is a lot of news articles about her and her role as a mayor, including stuff in the past 24 hours CT55555 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Forensics on the sources, whether proffered or found, only bring into relief the dearth of verifiability. We have: Multiple reports about the assault weapon affair, but not about the mayor per se; interviews upon interviews on the same issue; news items about the White House and the guns problem, in which our subject appears; etc. This is an exemplary case of one-event fame. All the Keep suggestions essentially amount to is an amalgam of "I like it", "I know it", and "Surely, there must be sources". Generously, one could, at best, place a Redirect to Highland Park, Illinois. -The Gnome (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability isn't really the issue here. There's plenty of information available about her political career. All of this predates the parade shooting. Chicago-area politics are exhaustively covered by local news sources. Highland Park has its own newspaper, the Highland Park News, which is part of the Chicago Tribune family. As I mentioned earlier, one could perhaps argue that the local sources don't count toward notability, although I'm on the fence about that. "ITSLOCAL" arguments get into philosophically fuzzy territory. Zagalejo (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Fbifriday. For those who are writing about her advocacy receiving nationwide attention, it is an instance of WP:TOOSOON. It has been ten days since the mass murder. The coverage is about the murders themselves, not so much her personal activism. Now, if her activism gets this level of attention a year from now? Maybe I'll reconsider. Otherwise, she's a smaller town mayor whose coverage amounts to coverage of elections in which she is incidental (e.g. any semi-valid primary challenger to Brad Schneider would have gotten that level of political coverage).--Mpen320 (talk) 03:06, 15 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.