Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 30

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BigSneeze444 (talk | contribs) at 16:29, 30 November 2023 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toledo, Peoria and Western Class H-10). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< November 29 December 01 >

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 redirect‎ to 4-8-4. Consensus not to retain but split between three options. I've picked this one as Owen references the target is mentioned at the destination, but any editor can either re-target the redirect or merge the content elsewhere if desired. Daniel (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toledo, Peoria and Western Class H-10

Toledo, Peoria and Western Class H-10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two sources and lacks notability.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge pertinent information into Toledo, Peoria and Western Railway would be the best choice. TH1980 (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: The sourced information comes from either a blog or a book that may have been self-published, making the content only questionably acceptable for merging. This is an unlikely and impractical candidate for redirecting, so no on that. There seems to be a general consensus that most train classes are notable in of themselves, but there is a lack of sourcing available on this class in particular that leads me to believe it does not clear GNG. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 4-8-4: where it is already mentioned. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chronographos

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

I couldn't find reliable sources to prove its notability. It has been in CAT:UNREF for more than 16 years. Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All I can find is [1] which is O Israelitis Chronographos. I don't think this is the same thing! So far, I can't find anything about a publication with that name.Knitsey (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Knitsey It's a different paper. This one was first published in 1899 and was in print until 2005, but not continuously. Today's paper is only in name related to the original one. Many important journalists and/or writers had contributions to the paper, among others el:Δημοσθένης Βουτυράς (Demosthenis Voutyras), and el:Σπύρος Μελάς (Spyros Melas). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • So the one source that we thought that we had doesn't even demonstrate the existence of this newspaper. How are readers to verify that this even exists at all, just for starters? The Greek Wikipedia is equally lacking in ways that readers can check that even the claim of existence is true, let alone provide a detailed article on the subject. Indeed, how can we even tell that your claim in this discussion is true, when the Greek Wikipedia equally unverifiably asserts something contradictory? Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Uncle G There is an article on Chronographos in the Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Ελληνικού Τύπου 1784-1974, vol. 4, pp. 367-68 (Encyclopaedia of the Greek Press -in Greek), published by the Institute of Historical Research of the National Hellenic Research Foundation. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Companies, and Greece. Skynxnex (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No demonstration of notability beyond WP:PASSING mentions. I've been following this discussion for a while, and did some searching myself for RS, and came up with essentially nothing. HappyWith (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2023 (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. Complex/Rational 17:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sore Throat (punk/new wave band)

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

No evidence that this band is in any way notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Can only find mentions of individuals with sore throats, nothing about a band. Gnewspapers doesn't have anything. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They were a pre-Internet local punk band so sources will be tough to find today, which may be unfair, but unless anyone can find anything in old magazines or punk history books, there is simply not enough with which to build a viable article here. Note that the article attempts to use an AllMusic bio page, but that page is just an empty placeholder and I suspect that it mixes up two bands of the same name. I can find no pro reviews or historical discussion for their one album either. The band is briefly mentioned at the article for one member who moved on to other things -- Matthew Flowers -- and the band could possibly be redirected to him, though I doubt that the current title is a likely search term. Finally, if the band article survives this process, it needs to be cleaned up severely. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not much notability, unfortunately; did play on The Old Grey Whistle Test (video), but other than that I haven't found much. I don't think this is worth a redirect; the search term is fairly unlikely and Flowers wasn't really a frontman, just a manager/co-songwriter/keyboard player. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 19:02, 3 December 2023 (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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sumner Hill, California

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

Declined PROD. Like Indian Lakes Estates, below, this is just a subdivision. The user who removed the PROD added a few news articles as references, but these are trivial coverage of routine legal matters. Informal settlements like subdivisions are subject to WP:GNG, which is not met in this case because of the lack of significant secondary coverage. This is just a WP:MILL housing tract like any other in the western world; it's on WP simply because a) it had a GNIS entry for some reason, and b) the prolific mass-article-creator Carlossuarez46 had internet access. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. The Sumner Hill community's legal battle against encroaching development went on for six years, reaching appellate court and resulting in a $3.2 million jury award to the homeowners. As a result, there was WP:SUSTAINED coverage about the community over a period of time, which I would hardly call a "routine legal matter". Cielquiparle (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: if the $3.2M lawsuit were a precedent-setting case, it would deserve its own article. But it isn't, leaving the subdivision to fend for itself in terms of notability. Owen× ☎ 23:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On that basis, the subsequent $25 million lawsuit that the Rio Mesa developers won against Fidelity National Title Insurance is arguably "precedent-setting" per the 2016 Fresno Bee article: "It effectively says to the title company industry to be more careful what they do and that California insurance laws are very strict and are designed to protect." But anyway the lawsuits' precedent-setting isn't what's in question here. It's whether Sumner Hill, California, actually exists and is "notable" as verified by significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. And the answer to that is yes on the basis of the sources that are already in the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But @OwenX, thanks for reading and for raising the question which certainly is interesting. I've added the point about constitutional protection of public access to navigable waters, where the appeals court actually ruled against the Sumner Hill homeowners – notable enough for the discussion to be cited in Stanford Environmental Law Journal. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no question Sumner Hill exists. What we are debating here is notability. If the $25 million case was a precedent-setting one, I'd love to see a separate article about it. As for the notability of Sumner Hill, I have yet to see coverage that suggests notability. But I'd be happy to hear what other editors think about this. Owen× ☎ 13:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @OwenX There's more in the article than just about the lawsuit though. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know there is, but as I said, I don't find any of it to meet our notability standards. Right now, it's not even mentioned in Madera County, California. Owen× ☎ 17:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is now. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure what that changes. The article about the county, in existence on WP for 21 years, never mentioned the subdivision until you rushed over to add the link, in an attempt to defend the page about Sumner Hill in an AfD. My point was not that we can't have a page about Sumner Hill because it's not mentioned in Madera County, California. It's that despite having links to five other unincorporated communities, until you did so yesterday, no one even thought of mentioning Sumner Hill there. In the end, mentions on WP do not establish notability. Notability must be established by independent, reliable third-party sources, and so far, we haven't seen those. Owen× ☎ 15:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Easily meets WP:GNG, as there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources which have been added to the article. These include multiple focused articles in the Fresno Bee over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time, starting in 1985 when the Sumner Hill subdivision was created at Peck Ranch. Yes, per WP:GEOLAND, subdivisions are not inherently notable...but the subsequent legal dispute between the Sumner Hill homeowners and the Rio Mesa developers over access to the San Joaquin River generated sustained media coverage over nine years, such as the 2007 "Tempers roiling on the river"; the 2008 article "River subdivision residents keep trails out"; and the 2012 "Homeowners win case on river access". The 2012 article in The Recorder published by American Lawyer Media provides an in-depth summary and analysis of the appeals court ruling, including key points on the history of the Sumner Hill development and dispute. (The 2012 ruling is also cited in the 2017 Stanford Environmental Law Journal and in the West Virginia Law Review, suggesting that the case has implications in other contexts, including issues related to constitutional protection of public access to coastal waterways.) Far from being ignored by the County of Madera, Sumner Hill has often been upheld as a "prominent development" within the county's broader plans for the "Rio Mesa" area, as explained in the 2012 Business Journal article and others. All in all, compared to the other Madera County stubs recently under review, this one is actually worth keeping; understand that private gated communities are not popular, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a viable reason to delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary! Private gated communities are extremely popular, as witnessed by their increasing prevalence. I am a big fan myself - used to live in one until a few years ago. However, I do not let my personal preferences bias my actions when editing a neutral point of view encyclopedia.
    Notability criteria have nothing to do with whether or not we like the subject matter. Wikipedia has articles about some of the nastiest people and organizations in history. The difference is that those people and organizations are extensively covered by non-primary sources, thereby establishing their notability. Almost all the sources you provided have to do with two non-notable court cases, and the rest are local publications of limited value as a secondary source.
    Pardon me for asking, but are you in any way connected to the subdivision or the court cases? If so, you must disclose it per WP:DCOI. Owen× ☎ 21:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I never heard of this place until I did the research. I disagree with your assertion of non-notability which seems entirely subjective. But we can agree to disagree. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:GNG per Cielquiparle's research and expansion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:GNG per HEY research and expansion. Djflem (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and kudos to Cielquiparle for the in-depth research. The sources show there is significant coverage of this place in multiple reliable sources. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There is one strong keep argument here, showing that reliable sources cover the topic of immigration policy under "New Labor" governments. Nonetheless, I see consensus here that the article as it stands is unacceptable synthesis. This discussion does not preclude recreation with better sources and better framing, or the use of the sources provided to expand a broader article. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration under New Labour from 1997 - 2010

Immigration under New Labour from 1997 - 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is essentially a polemic written from a very one-sided point of view. The references are either non-existent or come from very selective quoting of existing news articles, and it does not offer a balanced view of the issue. It seems astonishing that it has the bold (unreferenced) claim "the impact of the net increase has changed the ethnic demography of the United Kingdom" in the opening paragraph, which is essentially meaninglees given that ethnic demography is a constantly-changing thing. This seems to be an article solely created to prove some kind of nebulous political point. Some might argue that there is scope for the page to be improved and given a neutral point of view - I would be included to say that the best thing to do would be to merge a small amount of the content here to Immigration policy of the United Kingdom. It is notable that there is no comparable page for the immigration policies of any other government of the UK, which seems to also add to the suggestion that this page is being used as some kind of coatrack to air partisan grievances about a particular government.

  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC) SparksSparksSparks (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed with nom, a textbook coatrack article heavy on WP:SYNTH and arbitrarily focused on a particular window of time without clear explanation why. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I need to fill out a form stating "Why did you make this article", where do I fill it in, can you direct me to it? Tweedle (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OP. Does seem to clearly be written to make a political point. Heavy WP:SYNTH as Skynxnex says. — Czello (music) 18:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 21:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could just be article about immigration to the UK during that period, Labour or not being in power doesn't really matter... Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true but why that particular period? There is already a general article about UK immigration policy as mentioned above, the time period isn't particularly notable (the period from 1948 - 1962 is much more notable in terms of UK immigration policy), and there aren't any other articles about other time periods anyway. SparksSparksSparks (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK so if I had instead created an article detailing 1948 to 1962 immigration policy would you have started an AfD calling for the removal of that article because "there aren't other articles covering it so why have that one"? Yes or no? Tweedle (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have suggested it be merged into the main article Immigration policy of the United Kingdom, which seems a much better place to list immigration policy than a series of articles about arbitrary time periods. SparksSparksSparks (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lack of comparable articles is irrelevant in terms of a notability discussion; WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. There are numerous reliable source texts covering precisely this topic (the first two are book length academic texts): Labour's Immigration Policy: The Making of the Migration State (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), Immigration Under New Labour (Bristol University Press, 2007), How immigration came to haunt Labour: the inside story (The Guardian, 2015), The Immigration Legacy of Tony Blair (Migration Policy Instittue, 2007), Immigration Under New Labour: Policy and Effects (Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2011). Throughout the New Labour period, there was a vast amount of media reporting on the issue (and FWIW, there continues to be). The article does not appear to be a case of WP:TNT, the only issues raised above are specific content issues, that can be handled with minor cleanup. For example, this sentence "during this period around 2.2 million immigrants entered the United Kingdom,[3] the salience of the issue of immigration rose to one of the most prominent political issues in the country,[4] and the impact of the net increase has changed the ethnic demography of the United Kingdom." Is there anything there which is factually incorrect? Yes, I can quibble with the language of the last clause (is it net migration? is it comparable to other similar countries? University of Oxford's Migration Observatory provides good sourcing for these kinds of issues), but, to reiterate, I'm not seeing enough evidence that this is WP:TNT worthy. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Entire AfD rests on a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST fallacy. If the charge being levelled at me by extension of this articles creation is that I didn't have enough time to cover every single other period of migration policy in British history, then well I'm going to have to declare myself GUILTY!
"The references are either non-existent or come from very selective quoting of existing news articles"
Fascinating to find out that the Telegraph, the Guardian, the BBC, the Migration Observatory, Migration Policy and Will Somerville's book are 'very selective quoting or non-existent' sourcing. Thanks for that insight!
"astonishing that it has the bold (unreferenced) claim "the impact of the net increase has changed the ethnic demography of the United Kingdom" in the opening paragraph, which is essentially meaninglees given that ethnic demography is a constantly-changing thing"
Claims in the lead which are substationed in the body of the text do not need a reference (can't remember the exact WP:RULE name forgive me but someone down here will be able to verify this for me) if there are plenty of references covering it but besides that you literally state in the same breath that the claim is true, which it is, but that it's 'meaningless because its always happening' so what is the gripe here? Remove it for all I care and for the rest of the claims of language you can change around, that's still not a reason for deleting the article lol
"It is notable that there is no comparable page for the immigration policies of any other government of the UK, which seems to also add to the suggestion that this page is being used as some kind of coatrack to air partisan grievances about a particular government."
No again it's not, you are free to cover whatever 'scholarly' topic you want on here granted that there is enough sources warranting for it to be its own separate article (which there is in this case as the sources on this article are atm and the above user has shown). Tweedle (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the title already broadcasts the POV nature of the page. I was initially pondering a possible merger into Immigration policy of the United Kingdom or Modern immigration to the United Kingdom, but the combative attitude of the author here makes me fear the target of such a merger would, in turn, become the new political battleground for this content. And frankly, there's just not enough encyclopedic content here to justify wasting editors' time with soch POV battles. Owen× ☎ 19:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in my opinion this is textbook WP:SYNTH - the sources back up each individual statement but their collection together as a subject is done purely by us, which is not how we should be covering article subjects. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a case of WP:SYNTH and some original researches. Freinland (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2023 (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 05:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Lake Ranchos, California

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

Disputed PROD. This location is a subdivision, not a community. The user who contested the PROD added a couple of references, which is appreciated, but these are just routine mentions of legal matters. The consensus on subdivisions and other informal settlements is that they are subject to WP:GNG, and that bar is not met in this case because the sources cited are routine and not in-depth, and GNIS (which was originally the only cited source) does not establish notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for bringing this to AfD – definitely worth further discussion rather than simply PROD. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Undeveloped land with a history of failed development plans does not meet guidelines, I can't see anything that indicates this is more than just that. NGEO points to GNG and this fails. Nothing found that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  13:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This locale lacks any significant notability whatsoever. TH1980 (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alberte Bekkhus

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

The sources point out that the person is not notable. Leader of Red Youth won't add much to notability Tls9-me (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The person lacks notability and there are just mentions of the person in the given sourcesMicheal Kaluba (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Being leader of a political party's youth chapter is not an WP:NPOL-passing role, but the sourcing is nowhere near strong or substantive enough to deem her as passing WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jorekhali Senior Fazil Digree Madrasah

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

Declined and rejected multiple times at AFC but moved to mainspace by COI editor so here we are, fails WP:NORG and blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No coverage found in Google or Gnews, what's used now as sourcing is government documents (test results). appears PROMO as well Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2023 (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bethlehem Academy (Faribault, Minnesota)

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

fails general notability guideline. only sourced to a database (i assume, the link is dead). ltbdl (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Minnesota. ltbdl (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ●Comment- Found the link in the wayback machine here. it is indeed a database. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Christianity. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the article is clearly deficient, the subject is notable and there are many independent links from Google. The article's sources are inadequate but sources exist. They show that the school has been in continuous existence for over a century and a half. Kablammo (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @kablammo: may i have links to those sources? ltbdl (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ltbdl I have added 9 new references to this article, the refs are most likely the same links @Kablammo found. Although None of the refs I have found have significant coverage. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at the added sources, and everything except for the sports coverage is junk sadly. They are all simple database sites without in-depth coverage.
    Many of those can be modified by the school, and is of questionable reliability.
    Unless Kablammo's links are substantial, I agree with PaulGamerBoy that there is not enough coverage to write an entire article about the school. Ca talk to me! 17:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reviewed the links and also some books citing local newspaper articles, and I agree that these, while independent, are little more than brief mentions rather than in-depth sources. Therefore I have stricken my Keep. Kablammo (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found this additional coverage here Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not about the school itself. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of it is directly about the founding of the school by the Dominican nuns, there is even a picture of the original building Atlantic306 (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops sorry i only read the first few paragraphs & the images didn't show on my browser. They appear now. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wider assessment of the significance of the sources mentioned is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Comment- After assessing the sources provided I personally feel that they do not provide enough "significant coverage in reliable sources", see my !vote above. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PaulGamerBoy360, Please consider a couple of additional sources below. — Jacona (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•Keep- Due to the additional sources found, I am changing my !vote to keep 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. [This https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-irish-standard-bethlehem-academy-fa/136433285/] clip from 1896 is WP:SIGCOV. This article (and part2) from 1915 discusses their 50th anniversary, so founded in 1865. There are more, but I stopped here. This school was around 130 years before the internet. I'd be willing to wager there is lots of offline coverage in those 130 years. While I'm not arguing that being old alone is a guarantee of notability, I find it exceedingly unlikely that a school in continuous operation for 158 years would not be notable, and found sufficient evidence in just a couple of minutes. Based on these and other references, this article passes WP:GNG and therefore WP:NSCHOOL. Jacona (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are book references, One is "Preaching with Their Lives: Dominicans on Mission in the United States after 1850" ISBN 9780823289660. I have also found multiple references to a 1954 book about the school entitled "Five Decades". I can't find the book online. Maybe someone else has better skills than I. Here is one mention. Jacona (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified by Jacona that show significant coverage so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2023 (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. Daniel (talk) 10:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic Chemistry Olympiad

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

Uncited, fails notability microbiologyMarcus (petri dish•growths) 13:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: not eligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is not notable, and no coverage in independent sources could be found. --BoraVoro (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2023 (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 Yo-kai Watch. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jibanyan

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

Fails SIGCOV and notability, most of the sources at reception were trivial. Not sure the first source at further reading section helps, but the second one is dead? Anyway, even thou we can still access it; not sure it will squick through WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:42, 30 November 2023 (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 F.E.A.R.. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Wade

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

Probs fails SIGCOV and notability in my book, relying mostly at rankings. The sources/book looks lime its isn't enough yet and most the sources from google search shows talks about the game, and not the character itself (some of them, but mostly plot and passing mentions). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. If anyone would like the article userfied to work on it, please let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joann Hess Grayson

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

No notability criteria is met. The article has no secondary sources independent of the subject and I cannot find them either. This person has no available secondary coverage elsewhere, so they do not qualify under WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Further, they do not qualify under WP:ACADEMIC as their H-Index is 0 and the general consensus is that to qualify under the Academic guideline, am H-Index of 15+ is required. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Missouri and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:PROF notability in the article or elsewhere. I found one article with 200+ citations but psychology is a high citation field and only one well cited publication isn't enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some news sources detailing some of some work she has done and some of the awards she's received for her work, all mainly at the statewide level. Bridget (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Psychology. Bridget (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. based on the 2 new citations added by @Bridget --> 1 and 2.Royal88888 (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe this constitutes significant coverage. A local newspaper has covered the granting of a non-notable award. There are countless people given awards of a similar level all over the world, and coverage in a local newspaper does not, to me, demonstrate significant coverage warranting inclusion in an enyclopaedia. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Doesnt seem to pass NPROF but seems to pass GNG with the newspaper coverage about her and the awards that she received. --hroest
How? One is a local newspaper with a stub on being given a non-notable award, and the other addition does not count as it is the paper of the university the subject teaches at, it is not a secondary source independent of the subject and hence does not demonstrate notability. I'd like to see anyone supporting to keep the article provide me their three best sources. If significant coverage can be demonstrated I will withdraw the nomination.— MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is needed for a clearer consensus to be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shoerack (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

I'm closing this as a Soft Delete but the nominator is reminded that "Unsourced" is not a valid deletion rationale. Please include more information in your nomination statement that demonstrates you have done a thorough BEFORE. Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diario Democráticamente

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

Unsourced. Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being unsourced is not a valid reason for deletion. Did you make sure to look for sources before nominating for deletion? Industrial Insect (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you make sure it is not a hoax? Xx236 (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The author has removed the invitation from his Talk page. Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Companies, and Paraguay. Skynxnex (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the best I was able to ascertain is that it probably exists. From that to notability is a long way. Owen× ☎ 16:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Váci Mihály Gimnázium

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

Unsourced. Xx236 (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2023 (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. CAPS is an assertion that isn't policy based, leaving us with a weak delete and no further input Star Mississippi 00:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryang Kyu-sa

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This one is technically also notable given he has international caps, however more research needs to be done to establish how long he's played for the North Korean national team. Dazzling4 (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The number is international caps isn't relevant when establishing notability as per WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Palletalawinna. as it now exists (thank you). Star Mississippi 00:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palle Talawinna Udagammedda

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka. Hongsy (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, it certainly has a railway station, which suggests it exists and probably passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Katugastota has a railway station, if GMaps is to trusted. There's no source given for the location, it's the usual useless reference to the Sri Lankan census, and if the location be believed, it's a neighborhood in Kandy, not a village. Mangoe (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Palletalawinna is a settlement with a railway station of the same name. The settlement is not a suburb of Kandy per Google Maps. However, the article title includes Udagammedda and the only reference I've found under the article title is the GNIS. Rupples (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Palletalawinna, which is a notable geographic location. Additional references provided to clarify Palletalawinna passess WP:NGEO. Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dan arndt, there is no Palletalawinna article. Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I meant it should be renamed to Palletalawinna, as that is the WP:COMMONAME for the location. Dan arndt (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To muddy the waters further, there's Palle Talawinna. Rupples (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Liz:/@Rupples: have created Palletalawinna so that a redirect is now able to be achieved. Dan arndt (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support this redirect. Rupples (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2023 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keenagolla

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Other than a nature reserve, other references are about a tea estate in another province. Nothing found in gazetteer under this name or latest census. Rupples (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Found co-ordinates, it is mapped and the area around is populated. There's a Keenagolla primary school in Walapane Education Division.[2]. No. 1408 on this official list [3]. Striking delete on this evidence. Keep getting Timed Out when trying to connect to the Divisional Secretariat website, which may give further proof of the village's/hamlet's existence. Rupples (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2023 (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. Daniel (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bretow

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PRODUCER or WP:GNG. Not able to find any sort of WP:SIGCOV. The creator of this article recently created Mammoth Pictures which was co-founded by the subject and whose notability is questionable too. Hitro talk 10:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I added some content and sources and reviewed existing sources. There is consistent coverage of the individual and his films, beginning with his student films being shown at Cannes two years in a row. This coverage is in both industry publications and newspapers. There are articles about him, not just film reviews, which I believe meets the requirement for sig coverage. In addition, he was selected by Forbes as an up-and-coming entrepreneur. Rublamb (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just noting that this article was created by a sockpuppet of User:Abbasshaikh124 but I think enough work has been done on it by other editors that it isn't eligible for CSD G5. Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please review additions made since the article's nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Smyth (runner)

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

Non-notable runner. No major achievements or medals won. Natg 19 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NTRACK - Top 8 finish at 2017 World Mountain Running Championships (and team bronze). Plus, along with what is in the article appears to meet WP:GNG with these: [4], [5], [6], [7]. RonSigPi (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't decide whether to keep an article based on achievements or medals won, we decide based on the presence or non-presence of coverage. And this athlete has enough specific coverage as demonstrated above. --Habst (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of the sources provide Wikipedia:Significant coverage beyond saying he won X championship. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The Runner's World and ESPN articles (a few comments above this one) are good sources, the interview can fill in the spaces but is primary sourcing. I think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen E. Garza

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

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider. Article appears to focus more on misconduct allegations than subject itself Snickers2686 (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Magistrate judges are not inherently notable, but some do rise to the level of notability. This judge was the subject of a "rare public order" that "appeared to be the first time that an order had addressed abusive conduct by a federal judge" under judicial employment dispute resolution rules that had not previously been applied. This means the subject's alleged actions were the focus of scrutiny in an order that has implications for other federal judicial employees in the United States, illustrating a broader level of importance than the "run of the mill magistrate judge" cited in the AfD discussion for the cited comparator. And the conduct was publicly attributed to this specific judge, which is not especially common since judges accused of similar conduct often force the closing of any investigations by resigning. I think these factors push this over the line for notability. SeenToBeDone (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: Completely agree with the nom that magistrate judges are not inherently notable, but the misconduct allegations against her have resulted in enough coverage from a multitude of sources for this subject to meet WP:BASIC, such as in the Washington Post (in the article), Bloomberg [[8]] and Reuters [[9]]. Some rewriting is likely needed but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. User:Let'srun 01:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This particular individual seems notable for the judicial "item" that was used for the first time over the misconduct allegations. No judgement on the merits of the accusations, but this lifts the particular biography into notability for the amount of coverage it had. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Richman

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

There is a suspicion that this person does not exist.

  1. There are no publications in the Latvian language (he was supposedly born in Latvia), several Latvian community members did some research and found nothing. Džeims could be a proper (but rare) Latvian name, Ricmens is not a Latvian surname and to me just sounds like a prank — "Rich man".
  2. Almost all of the sources used in the article do not seem reliable. No prominent media have reported on him. Even if this person is real and a billionaire he should not be notable here as there are no reputable third-party publications about him.
  3. Deletion discussion already started on Polish Wikipedia. Papuass (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is kind of fascinating. I did some basic research: of the sources in the article, one doesn't mention Richman at all, and two are dead links. The most reliable source is probably Yahoo Finance, but all other sources are somewhat obscure, and some are scrapers. An online search also doesn't bring up any sources such as the Financial Times, The Economist etc. mentioning Richman. Of course there's not specific requirement for any of these sources to mention him, but you would think that this guy would come up at least once in any of these established sources.
Furthermore, there's the website of JJ Richman, Richman's supposed company. It's pretty bare bones. Of course having a fancy website is also not a requirement for having a Wikipedia article, but you'd think that with "teams across the globe", they would list their staff or something, anything. Lastly, pictures of the supposed James Richman. There's a bunch, and they are mostly photoshopped images of some bloke with shades. Maybe that's the actually existing James Richman, but again, you would think there would be at least one normal picture of this guy somewhere that doesn't look like a YouTube thumbnail. Cortador (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Yahoo Finance story comes from "Insider Monkey". I am not sure what kind of company they are and what is their reporting quality. JJ Richman exists on Linkedin, but user form Polish Wikipedia could not find it in registry of Singaporian companies where it is supposed to be registered. Papuass (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I assessed the sources the article uses, and it's mostly sources making claims that, mysteriously, aren't mentioned anywhere else e.g. Richman being the richest European and possibly the second-richest man in the world. Articles also commonly link to news aggregators, which speaks for the quality of their editing process. I also checked the UK's company register, and while there are a couple of companies called "Richman", none is called "JJ Richman", and they are all dissolved or a different kind of business. My current impression is that "James Richman" is a guy who photoshopped a few selfies and got the attention of some low-quality news sources. But even that speculation aside, the source situation is in my opinion dire enough to warrant deletion. Cortador (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The photographs I found in articles and a Youtube video are all in only a few poses (with a different background). So that might as well be AI generated photos. So the person might not even exists or it might a model/actor that posed for one photo shoot. Might not be related to those using the "Richman" name (which BTW sounds like a comics character Richie Rich).
As for sources: note that I already removed some fake information. Some sources are clearly fabricated so someone took effort to fabricate information. The main example I'm very sure is fabricate is the one about investment in a 3-D printed heart. 3-D printed heart was a real invention, but Richman was not acknowledged in the paper about the heart. See also: Removed, falsified information.
I see Cortador already added some more info on sources curently in the article on Talk:James_Richman. Nux (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The author was 'a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit.'
Xx236 (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I reviewed some sources on plwiki and some things on enwiki. Already removed some of the information that I'm quite sure was falsified (meaning other sources that should confirm an investment do not say anything about Richman nor JJ Richman company). I was also unable to find any source that confirm registration of JJ Richman company which supposed to be stationed in Singapure. Unless I'm missing something, JJ Richman company is very likely to be a scam. Wikipedia is most probably intended to boost credibility of the company that probably doesn't even exists or doesn't have the money and abilities they say they do. Yes, I'm aware the this is a big accusation. Even if the company and the person exists it is definitely not as influential as the initial article suggested. So the article should be removed. --Nux (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree that this is likely at best a prank and at worst a scam, but even if it wasn't, the bottom-tier sourcing justifies a deletion on an article about this supposed major investor that no reliable sources mentions, ever. Cortador (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As nominator. --Papuass (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There is general agreement that the sources provided to support this article's existence are insufficient. signed, Rosguill talk 15:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Internet meme trolls in Kerala

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

Reverted WP:PROD. The regional subject of "Internet meme trolls in Kerala" in particular does not appear to be a notable topic, and neither do any of the individual "trolling groups" mentioned. This simply isn't encyclopedic material, and is akin to writing an article called "Garage bands in Kerala" and using it as a WP:COATRACK to include WP:INDISCRIMINATE / WP:NFT material about you and your friends' non-notable bands. The fact that some minor and mostly local/regional coverage exists that mentions trolls and Kerala is about the same as minor newspapers mentioning that a live music scene exists there and mentioning some bands. This is not in-depth coverage of the quasi-broad article subject as such, nor in-depth coverage of particular trolling groups or individual trolls. It simply is not plausible that Kerala especially has a noteworthy trolling phenomenon happening, when Internet trolls are active all over the world, doing the same sorts of stuff everywhere. Even if something like that could be demonstrated about Kerala, it would only rate a sentence or two at Troll (slang)#India, not a separate articles, since there isn't anything distinctive about the trolling activity in (or regarding) Kerala.

WP:BEFORE: I Googled around for additional source material but didn't find anything better than what is already in there, though exactly how to search for something like this is bit subjective. It's possible there is some additional coverage that actually is significant, in some non-English language(s) of India, but I doubt it, and am not competent to find it. This is pretty typical of general-search results, and this of Google News results. Lots of passing mentions about someone being trolled, someones doing some trolling, some venue with a bunch of trolls. In short, it looks like coverage of Internet trolling everywhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. For the reasons outlined in the nomination. I tried to tidy up this article, dealing mainly with format, but could see that it's a non-notable topic. Regards, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Arbitrary and lacks encyclopedic value. Internet trolls are everywhere across the globe. Nothing special about Kerala to warrant an independent article. Sources are run-of-the-mill, and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This also serves as a WP:PROMOTION for troll pages and trolls from Kerala, treating Wikipedia as a personal blog for local interests.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Advanced search for: 
"International Chalu Union"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
  • FactorDaily is not "local/regional coverage", unless one counts India as "local/regional". And its article, alone, is fairly substantial. The The News Minute article is on the same two named groups, and is an additional, second, independent source. Both sources discuss specific things that are particular to their circumstances, such as what topics have caused them problems, and the Times of India piece (which is somewhat the poorer than the others, which people not used to Indian news media might not expect) then adds to that commentary on the language issues.

    The real problem here is that the article writers here in the English Wikipedia cannot write English. With these sources available, gibberish like the second paragraph means that L1 English speakers will probably not appreciate what is in the sources and what the subject is. The Deccan Herald source has been completely misrepresented, for example.

    Simply put:

    Trolling has become a cottage industry in Kerala, exemplified by two main groups, Troll Malayalam and International Chalu Union, that have grown and become organized, with their own semi-formal moderation systems and rules of conduct, since 2015. They target mainly Indian public figures, have rules about not invading their private lives or making fun of their physical attributes, and have trolled non-Indian figures as well, sometimes resulting in figures in the Anglosphere outside of India (e.g. Mitchell Johnson) suddenly (and to their surprise) having hundreds of memes in Malayalam appearing as replies to their social media posts.

    Running jokes that they employ include giving K Surendran the nickname (in Malaylam) "onion plant", and high profile trolls have included trolling Sachin Tendulkar by pretending to apologize to Maria Sharapova for having trolled her years before for saying that she didn't know who Tendulkar was, and agreeing that she has turned out to be right to do so all along. Common reactions to their trolling have been particularly strong when it comes to Modi, and a meme targetting Christianity caused an artist from Canada to try to take their FaceBook page down by falsely claiming that their logo was copyrighted by him.

    There you go: A stub supportable from all four of the aforementioned sources that actually explains the subject. Now try the Google Scholar search in the advanced search box above and be surprised at the sources that are not yet in the article and the further scope for expansion that there is from people who have actually made academic studies of this. ☺

    Uncle G (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I could probably construct a similar-scope stub, with similar quality sources, about the live music scene in Albuquerque, New Mexico, including various specific bands, and this won't make it an encyclopedic topic that needs a stand-alone article with coatracking of non-notable bands. Even if something can marginally pass WP:GNG (and I'm not at all sure from the above that this does) doesn't mean that we must have an article for it. When it's something trivial, of almost entirely local or regional interest, and not appreciably different from the same sort of thing everywhere else, other than some names are different, then the best option (if we cover it at all) is generally as a paragraph or maybe a section in some broader article. There are some trollings that have generated considerable press coverage, from Stephen Colbert's repeated on-TV advocacy of his audience vandalizing Wikipedia, way back in the day, to the last few years' torrent of online anger directed at J. K. Rowling (on multiple issues), but we cover these things very briefly at Stephen Colbert (character), and with barely any mention (two sentence clauses, basically) at Political views of J. K. Rowling focusing instead on reactions to her by notable people.
    FactorDaily is described as "an Indian digital media publication", but that doesn't make it a reliable source (and it appears never to have been discussed at WP:RSN). It did get two awards for specific articles and was co-founded by a legit journalist, Pankaj Mishra, which are promising, but our article at FactorDaily has no other information that would help establish reputability or lack thereof, and it doesn't have a lot of coverage about it, itself. Our article at The News Minute suggests it only has a staff of 12 (only one of whom was notable, Chitra Subramaniam, who is no longer there), but it also has won awards for two articles. Also seems never to have been reviewed at RSN. But the "fairly substantial" FD article isn't on the general topic of our article, but two of the coatracked groups (TM and ICU). The NM source similarly isn't really about our topic but about Indian TV shows and satire of them and their cast members in general, with brief mention of the same two groups. This isn't sufficient. Times of India shows up a lot at RSN, and is listed as no consensus or mixed reliability at WP:RSP. Their article isn't about trolling in/from/about Kerala, and even explicitly says it is about the fact that "for a lot of Malayalis, especially outside Kerala, social media is the only means of venting their frustration" [emphasis added], particularly at various celebs, some of them Westerners. It's the only mention of Kerala in the article. It also wanders into WP:FRINGE nonsense with declarations like "Malayalis and Bengalis are a people who are genetically short tempered, irritable and argumentative". Not a pinnacle of reliablity. Nothing in these stories indicates an actual and distinctive subculture of trolling in the state; it's routine regional-flavor coverage of Internet antics that aren't identifiably different from or more prevalent than trolling everywhere.
    To address the draft stub above in some specifics (and I would have AfDed that version, too): "a cottage industry in Kerala" is basically WP:OR (as is the central notion of the current poor article). There simply is not any real sourcing that something definably distinct, something unique, is happening in Kerala. This isn't appreciably different from writing about, say, the restaurant scene in a particular city. There will be coverage, and there will be claims that it's special, but no demonstration that it's special. (And that's not what cottage industry means, anyway.) "Exemplified by" is a reach; two sources mentioning the same two groups (which strongly suggests direct cannibalization of one publisher's story by the other, espcially given the length of the list of such groups [deleted since this AfD started] in our erstwhile article; seems just a bit too coincidental) doesn't demonstrate them to be exemplars of the activity of all of them. "their own semi-formal moderation systems and rules of conduct": So what? This is true of, say, just about every "Group" on Facebook, and every other subReddit, and various of the larger wikiprojects on Wikipedia, and any big software dev project on GitHub and Sourceforge, oh yeah and plenty of local bands. Engaging in the everyday human interaction and collaboration behavior of negotiating what to do and how to do it doesn't generate notability. "hundreds of memes in Malayalam appearing": If some Malayali celeb irritated a bunch of Americans, Canadians, or British, then they'd end up getting "hundreds of memes in English appearing" in their feeds that are otherwise dominated by Malayalam. Nothing encyclopedically interesting going on. Next is some random trivia; I could write the same sort of material about the memes and jokes and jibes I post on Facebook, but that wouldn't make it encyclopedically useful information (even if I were arguably notable), and if I violated someone's copyright in the process and got put in Facebook jail, that wouldn't be non-INDISCRIMINATE to include either.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 03:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a postcript, I should note that I could probably double the size of the above just from the sources already in the article. But that was enough to show a stub. Plus, now I have to catch a bus, and also get back to Creeks in Kentucky to vacuum up more GNIS mess substubs before someone notices them and starts another nomination spree. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Google Scholar results (you have to remove the quotation marks from around the query to get them) are articles broadly about Internet subculture, Internet trolling/memes more narrowly, or Internet culture in India more narrowly, that just happen to mention Kerala (usually in passing), because of a few online incidents there like e-protest about a particular legal case, and cyberbullying of a particular actress, plus evidence that happened to be collected there, e.g. pertaining to the Kerala assembly election in 2021, and so on, but these sources also cover similar stuff in and collect similar evidence from other places. Skimming 10 pages of such search results, I find zero sources that are particularly about a topic that could be called "Internet meme trolls in Kerala" (or the renamed title "Kerala troll community"). The header at the top of the results says "About 178 results". Kerala has a population of about 34.5 milion. Countries about the same population as Kerala state include Poland, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Peru, Malaysia, Angola, Mozambique, and Saudi Arabia. Substituting their names into the search produces "About X results" of the following, respectively: 2,310, 459, 168, 1,760, 521, 1,170, 189, 157, 983. So, also from a statistical perspective, there appears to be nothing unusual going on in Kerala with regard to the Internet and memes and trolling. We just don't have any encyclopedic need for national much less sub-national articles on Internet memes and trolling activity in them. WP isn't a database or index of Internet subculture shenanigans, or a place to lionize them on a localized level.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC); updated for improper page rename, 05:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom.~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is about the community of troll memes in Kerala[10] and its happenings through trolls in India and internationally, trolls are very famous in Kerala and the Kerala troll community has had a huge impact on politics in India itself in a big way. Maria Sharapova vs Sachin Tendulkar fans trolls[11] are very viral and much talked about internationally, Sachin later spoke about it, just like Kerala vs Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi political trolls[12] have become a huge news and political debate. I am interested in keeping the article, this article will be helpful in future to learn about trolls in Indian zone Spworld2 (tαlk) 4:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    We already know what the article is about. That some famous people have been trolled is irrelevant; notability is not "inherited" by a non-notable subject interacting in some way with a notable one. Someone famous speaking about being trolled doesn't make trolling in/from Kerala different from any other trolling. Whether you'd like to keep the article is also irrelevant. "Will be helpful" is not a valid argument either. About your sources: The ToI piece has already been covered above. The BBC News piece never mentions Kerala (or Malayali, Malayalam), and that tiny "article" is about Indians in general. The Onmanorama source ("known for its hyperlocal coverage of Kerala") is not about trolling in/fron Kerala either. It's about "Malayalees all over the world in one accord took to social media sites" (emphasis added) to criticize Modi for bad-mouthing Kerala. This has nothing at all to do with an alleged trolling subculture in Kerala, and is precisely the same as a story that said something like "People of Indonesian descent all over the world sent angry messages to Donald Trump on Truth Social for calling Indonesia bad names."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish, Two incidents are mentioned here for reference, as I know Kerala area I can know more, here this article is not promoting special groups, I am not writing for money, trolls are very useful and exploiting in this decade in Kerala, India is really a democratic country. Because of that the state of Kerala holds fast to democratic values,In that, trolls are used a lot in Kerala to protest against the ruling parties when they are working against the people, sometimes trolls even change the governance reforms in Kerala, so many trolls are manifested in the daily life of the people of Kerala,This is a community where meme trolls are born, not only 10 or 100 people respond by trolling in Kerala, tens of thousands respond by trolling on various topics, the current government of Kerala has often received trolls and changed the rules of governance, Kerala is the most trolled by the Indian central government.LPG gas price hike, petrol price, fascist rule all react to Kerala community trolling and protesting Spworld2 (talk) 5:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
That you know something about the subject of the article is not a reason to keep it. The material might be improved by removing all the name-dropping of non-notable alleged trolling groups (only two of which were attested in reliable sources so far), but that doesn't make the idea of "Internet meme trolls in Kerala" an encyclopedically notable topic. No one accused you of writing for money, and that's just extraneous. I'm not sure what "trolls are very useful and exploiting in this decade" really means, but it doesn't seem to be a valid rationale for keeping the article. Democratic values are unrelated to whether this is a proper encyclopedia article. Internet trolls all over the world are protesting things, very commonly against people in power; this is not special to Kerala. We have no reliable-source evidence at all to support "trolls even change the governance reforms in Kerala ... changed the rules of governance" and that is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim requiring exceptional sources. There is no evidence of more trolls in Kerala affecting daily life than elsewhere. There is no evidence that Kerala is a special home of "troll generation". There is no evidence for your "tens of thousands" claims, but even if there was, so what? There are many more trolling posts about, say, Donald Trump, but we do not and should not have an article about trolling related to Donald Trump. "trolled by the Indian central government": there is no reliable sourcing for the idea that the government of India is itself trolling Kerala. All of the claims you are making are exceptional and highly dubious ones, without any reliable sourcing to back them up, and it simply makes clear what your blog-style, non-encyclopedic, speculative and exaggeratory intent is in developing this article further, so is an additional reason to delete it. Kerala makes up only 2.8% of India's population, and has the lowest population growth rate of any Indian state, so this figure will actually go down. It is not plausible that Kerala is a special nexus of globally notable Internet activity of any kind. It's like claiming that Peoria, Illinois, is really a unique centre of influence in hip-hop. This is nothing but regional-pride writing, and it doesn't belong on this project.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢,  😼  03:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As only 2.8% of India's population is in Kerala, I could read in your reply that Kerala issues should not form articles at international level, which is a very weak idea than in some European countries. Looking at the figure of 2.8%, is this not valuable? It is rare in the world to correct administrative reforms with internet meme trolls and it is happening in Kerala [13],[14]. I am not clamoring for an article for my selfishness, Kerala people are a community that has a great interest in trolls which they clearly reflect in their daily lives. From the common people of Kerala, to the Kerala Police[15],[16],Collector[17] and Ministers[18], trolls are very influential in politics [19],football elections, cinema and governance protests. This internet meme I wrote is titled Trolls in "Kerala" I am asking you whether it is possible to keep this article under a different title or to stop it by changing the subject and if you can help me how to stop this article according to Wikipedia rules. more reference : [20], [21],[22]- Spworld2 (tαlk) 10:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Nothing to do with whether something is "valuable" in some vague sense, and WP not needing local-interest blog-like material about Kerala is not a reflect on Kerala's "value". We don't have such material about New York City or Saudi Arabia or the entirety of Russia, either. Using the Internet to affect politics is routine, everywhere, and has been since the rise of the public Internet in the mid–late 1990s (I would know; I was one of the pioneers of doing it!). "It is happening in Kerala". Well, pretty much everything of a general sort that happens everywhere is happening in Kerala, and everthing of a general sort happening in Kerala is happening everywhere else, too. To return to my themes above, there is a restaurant industry in Kerala that is very similar to that everywhere else, there is a local music scene in cities in Kerala not unlike those in other cities around the world, and Internet trolling is a thing there, just as it is everwhere. Let's look at these sources, in the order you provided them:
  1. The ham-fisted government of Kerala goes after 138 people for "defaming" various government figures. That the alleged defamation happened via the Internet is not actually interesting, since everything is online these days. The does nothing to establish that "meme trolling" in Kerala is more prevalant than anywhere else or different in character from anywhere else (it just demonstrates that Kerala has a jerk of prosecutor who has no respect for the idea of people in a democracy freely expressing displeasure with governmental representatives). This might well be worth a mention at Kerala somewhere under "Government" or "Politics" as a governmental over-reach thing, not as an Internet thing in particular.
  2. IRA appears to be an unreliable, disreputable publisher [23]. Taking this item at face value, it is a college paper written in badly broken English, and cites only one source (broken citation) that is just some interview with a non-notable person anyway. It claims that Internet and social media are important in Kerala (true of everywhere); has a lot of general information about what trolling is and does, everywhere (primarily satire and annoyance of parties believed to deserve it); and says its gist is "trolls and its [sic] importance to the cyber world of Kerala". Well, trolls are important in the "cyber world" (nice 1997 'Net-speak there) of everywhere, but this does nothing to establish that trolling is important especially in Kerala in a general way, or is somehow different there.
  3. (Un-paywalled here) Kerala police on their official "social media page" (service unspecified) posted a video of someone verbally abusing someone else and criticizing the police. The apparent point was to use it as an example of bad behavior in some kind of public education campaign. Lawyer claimed it violated Kerala Police Act privacy protections, and a police bureaucrat said it had been taken offline and wouldn't happen again. This has nothing to do with our topic. It mentions the word "trolling", but confusingly uses it to mean the police posting a video of a suspect, not the public trolling the police. It's just completely irrelevant.
  4. Memes and angry posts about the state police and one of its bureacrats were ridiculing and critical, and a few "went viral" locally. This happens everywhere. Half my Facebook feed is full of political venting of this sort (most of the rest being cat pictures). Anyway, it had no effect other than annoying some bureaucrats, and no action was taken, since none of it was illegal.
  5. An Indian Administrative Service officer posted on Facebook that fans of the German association football team in the FIFA World Cup 2018 would probably be removing their fan signs from the area after their team lost. Yep, that's the entire "story". This is yet another case of "troll" being applied to a government figure posting something online, and nothing to do with any alleged trolling subculture in Kerala.
  6. In the exact same vein. Another Kerala bureaucrat was criticized by a few people for mentioning a phrase from a left-wing meme in a Facebook announcement about a highway flyover's construction. His post was also said to have "gone viral", but this time with an actual figure: shared 650 times, which for a public figure is basically nothing. He was said to be "trolling" right-wing misogynists from RSS/BJP. But as usual this does absolutely nothing to establish the idea of a notable subculture of trolling in Kerala that isn't the same as trolling everywhere much less connected to various "trolling groups".
  7. Trolling, often political, is happening in Kerala. (Same as everywhere.) Then there's lots of general info about trolling, which has nothing to do with Kerala in particular. Leaders of political parties have been trolled (same as everywhere). Brief mention/quoting of the same two trolling groups mentioned in a source in previous posts above (or maybe this is the same source). Complaints about the left-leaning government of the state arresting trollers (doesn't specify exactly what for). Political opponent sides with the trollers, and says the party in power is abusing that power against freedom of expression. Like the first source, this is potentially useful material on political over-reach and suppression to use at the article Kerala, under "Politics" or "Government", but it does not even hint that trolling as an activity in Kerala is something unusual and noteworthy. Rather, government bureaucrats cracking down on people criticizing them is the entire story. That the crticism is online is simply a fact of the times, and nothing to do with Kerala in particular. And "trolls are very influential in politics" is not demonstrated by this, as a statement about Kerala (by any of these sources).
  8. JSTOR article, finally something not completely trivial. Got access to full text through WP:TWL. I read this in detail, and it is about political figures getting online and using social media more and more, and relying on supporters to engage in online argument on the candidate's behalf. It likes to call them "trollers", but there is nothing in here about a special trolling subculture in Kerala. It is simply documenting that politicians in Kerala are bleatedly doing what politicians everywhere are doing (including slick ad campaigns and other methods they weren't bothering with before, not just social media stuff), and the reason is because their consituencies have gotten much more media-savvy over the last few years. The Internet is giving them also a new reach to the Malayali (or Malayalee if you prefer) disaspora. They're also learning that old media (like TV recordings of them making campaign promises they did not keep) can come back to haunt them. Article closes wondering whether this stuff is good for democracy or just a bunch of noisy polemics. Kerala was the focus of this piece not because something unique is happening in Kerala, like an unusual subculture of trolling, but because Kerala has been very slow to catch up. At any rate, it does not support the retention of this article.
  9. An opinion piece that is simply tracking Twitter trends that pertain to Malayalis, noting politicians using social media to attack each other, and also mentioning the use of Twitter and other platforms by the public to vent their frustrations at various public figures, and goofing off with hashtags just for the fun of it. As with the JSTOR piece, this is just evidence of social media use in Kerala catching up with everwhere else. There's nothing noteworthy about this material.
  10. Irrelevant. Says two Indian bureaucrats got trolled on social media (happens everywhere), and has no connection to Kerala other than that one of the targets speaks Malayalam. Notably says: "Then there were the usual troll posts modelled on hit film dialogues ...", i.e. it is conciously aware that trolling is just a general Internet thing and comes in thematic variants.
To address a couple of other comments: "This internet meme I wrote ...", yes it's clear that you are deeply involved in this stuff, and are trying to write about stuff of local interest to which you are closely connected. See WP:NFT. "[is it] possible to keep this article under a different title or to stop [deletion] by changing the subject": Not likely. The title is poor, but has nothing to do with a deletion action; if kept, it would probably be renamed through WP:RM process. If you changed the subject (to what?) then it would need to be in a different article. But if you go off and write "Social media in Kerala" or "Malayali Internet memes" or other claptrap about essentially the same topic, it will just be brought up for deletion again, because your idea of taking a random topic like "memes and trolling on social media" and intersecting it with "Kerala" or "Malayalis" does not produce any kind of encyclopedic topic to write about. We don't have articles like this about Botswana or Texas or Aberdeenshire or Beijing, either.
So, after all of this I still have to conclude that absolutely nothing is going on with this erstwhile article other than "regional pride" writing, trying to make it seem like something magically special is happening in Kerala, when it is the same stuff as everywhere else, maybe just a bit late out of the gate. This is precisely the same as misusing local and regional news coverage of local music performances or restaurants to try to gin up a perception of a notable and distinctive music or cuisine subculture of great importance in a particular city, when in reality nothing special is going on whatsoever. This is not the right site for writing that is anything like this. You need to start a blog or a Facebook group or something like that. See also WP:NOT#BLOG and WP:NOT#SOCIAL. This is an encyclopedia for topics of global interest.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been further developed to make it Keep WP:KEEP for WP:NRVE, added more references, and changed the title to Kerala Troll Community ( it may be against Wikipedia policy, some have given notice for this - this Due to lack of knowledge about the policy or carelessness) Kerala Troll Community consists of trollers[24], meme makers[25] and Kerala cartoonists[26], Kerala Sarcasm Producers This section may also be called[27] - Spworld2 (tαlk) 5:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Let's cover these sources too, then, in the order in which you've given them: 1) Basically says that Kerala is belatedly catching up to the idea of Internet memes (we already knew that from the above), and that ones from Kerala reflect local humour (true of memes everywhere), and that experienced trollers in the area have a good sense of what works as a meme (true of trollers everywhere). 2) Profile of someone and her feminist memes page with "more than 11,000 followers" which is basically nothing. That she happens to be in Kerala is incidental (she has to be somewhere). This is no different from, say, a profile of a local chef or guitarist. 3) Not relevant. That Kerala might produce more cartoonists than average is an interesting factoid, but unrelated to the subject of the article exept in the most peripheral way. And note that we do not have an article at "Cartooning in Kerala" or "Cartoons in Kerala" or "Animation in Kerala" or anything like that. No topic of that sort is notable. We have articles like Anime (= Animation in Japan) and American animation and even History of French animation, about entire industries and "schools" of cartoon/animation style at the nation level, but not about cartoon/animation (or internet!) activity in particular US states or departements of France or prefectures of Japan. 4) Not relevant; it's about humour and comedy in Kerala, and is just like an article about the comedy scene in Santa Barbara or in Hong Kong, and we don't have articles about things like that. We do have articles on national-level comedy as a distinctive variety and quasi-industry, e.g. British comedy, Canadian humour, Chinese comedy, etc., but they are not subnationally divided. Anyway, this 4th citation makes no mention of the Internet, memes, or trolling, other that to cross-reference someone's one-off tweet.
As with the above material, there is no evidence of something you now want to title "Kerala troll community". There is no evidence that there is any such "community", any more than there is a "community" of this activity everywhere else. There is no evidence that trolling and memes and other Internet activities are different in Kerala than anywhere else; they are simply covered by media in Kerala in a Kerala-specific way, the same as newspapers in Idaho in the US or Sumatra province in Indonesia will focus on local people and events in coverage of internet-related goings-on in those places. There is not only no evidence that Internet memes and trolling are more developed in Kerala in some way than anywhere else, there is very strong evidence (in the previous round of this source analysis) that they are a recent phenomenon there, slowly catching up with the rest of the world including more tech-savvy states of India. The material you want to write belongs on a blog or social media site, and non-encyclopedic material exactly like it could be written about memes and trolling in just about any other well-populated (and not technologically deprived) subnational jurisdiction on the planet. What you are trying to do is very clear: You are gathering isolated, unconnected press mentions of anything to do with Internet memes, trolling (under conflicting definitions of that term), the Internet at all, and humor or comedy, that have any connection to Kerala, and trying to synthesize this into a story of Kerala as a unique environment of online satire worth global attention. This is pure original research and an opinion editorial, not an encyclopedia article. Nothing like it belongs on this site.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kerala troll community is an independent community that participates in troll activity from different places in kerala and at different times every day, the purpose is the same, it is created according to the event of politics[28], entertainment and sports, it is childish to avoid it by saying that there is no proof. There will be many people in the world who believe in Gods. Some Gods we cannot see in their belief. They look at what is written and history, they create articles, they don't see them because there is no proof. Many news links from trusted sources are included here and in the article reference, some may be of related topic and may be related to the article [29] Newly added reference links related to the article are posted here and hopefully the article can be kept in this section if it can comply with the notability policy WP:KEEP for WP:NRVE.Spworld2 (tαlk) 4:45 , 4 December 2023 (UTC)
And here we go again. Review of these sources in the same order: A) (Accessed via WP:TWL.) We've already been over this source, above. It says that instead of just doing things like having street-corner rallies and handing out flyers, politicians in Kerala are finally catching up to using social media and the Internet. Also has a lot to do with one new political party and their coverage by TV and print news media. This does nothing to establish a distinct Internet-using community/subculture in Kerala. B) This is a suppositional and politicized opinion piece about troller psychology written by a non-psychologist (a controversial retired police bureaucrat) and has no connection to Kerala at all other than the writer happens to be from there. P.S.: WP:KEEP does not apply to this (there is no speedy keep criterion this qualifies for), and it's already explained to you below how this fails NRVE. Simply repeating the same thing over and over again is not a valid argument.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV fork. Kinopiko talk 20:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean a WP:POVFORK from Troll (slang)#India, or is there another article we need to look at?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has been further developed to make it Keep WP:KEEP for WP:NRVE- Spworld2 (tαlk) 5:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
    The detailed analysis I've done on the sources you've provided demonstrates that this completely fails NRVE. All any of it proves is that trolling and memes happen in Kerala, which everyone already knew, and which doesn't constitute an encyclopedia topic. To quote NRVE: "the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". The topic of this article is an alleged distinctive subculture/community of Internet trolling and memes that is particular to Kerala, but there is no evidence for this, only for the the same Internet satire activity there (and belated at that) as is found all over the world.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has moved to Kerala troll community during the AfD discussion. Certes (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    it may be against Wikipedia policy, some have given notice for this and this Due to lack of knowledge about the policy or carelessness Spworld2 (tαlk) 5:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete, per SMcCandlish's exceedingly patient and exhaustive analyses of the sources. JoelleJay (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • i think that this article should be deleted. This isnt even a relevant subject???Lolitszenitsu (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding a reference from some verified source that is not of local interest to keep the article status This may be included in the above discussion, or an advertisement on an independent topic as stated in the category WP:SIGCOV by a valid reference from a verified source. WP:NRV (WP:NRVE) may consider promotional web links or non-verified sources. Verifiable objective evidence that the subject matter has received substantial attention from independent sources may be accepted to support a claim of notability, there is a lot of evidence that there is such a community in Kerala, another way of thinking is that there is no similar fact in other countries in the world, some discussion members are asking above, there is, but we do not see such a big troll meme impact as a day-to-day activity or democratic protests against the government like in Kerala. But it has a big political impact in Kerala, it even affects the central government of India, and the ruling party is losing big in elections in Kerala, creating a troll meme (troll community). Many things going on in Indian nationalism are discussed by trolls, it is very childish to ignore such a popular article as nothing, this article should be kept for further discussion from Kerala area, every time adding the above sources or new references.[30], [31][32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37], trolls are very influential in politics in Kerala [38],[39],here,[40],[41],[42], [43],[44] - Spworld2 (tαlk) 3:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
    reference -
    1. BOOKS📖 [45][46][47],[48][49]
    2. JSTOR⚜️ [50], [51]
    3. DOC📄 [52][53] [54] [55]
    4. 📺📰🌐 [56][57][58], [59][60][61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66][67][68][69][70]
    Spworld2 (tαlk) 4:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
    I'm sure no one wants to see me fill up several more screenfulls (screensful?) of analysis of this stuff, and I do have a life. Most of these links are just copy-pastes of material already examined above in detail, many of the rest are not reliable sources, more are simply off-topic (about humour and movies and etc.), and what remains are exactly like all the others above: they demonstrate that people in Kerala are (belatedly) getting on board with the Internet and social media, and they use them for the same things and in the same ways (including trolling and memes) as everyone everywhere else in the world (who have regular Internet access). You can dump 100 more "sources" like these here, and the result is going to be the same: they do not demonstrate that Kerala has a uniquely notable, distinct, important, or influential social-media environment, much less anything even vaguely like a special community or subculture of trolling. Let me put it this way: even if you have 10,000 sources that say that cats breathe and eat and poop and die, it does not prove that you have a magical flying cat.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Objection from my side is over, I offer you a Arctic Ale by Allsopp beer🍺 for properly postmorteming this for so many days 🤝 - - Spworld2 (tαlk) 01:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per the through analysis of references done by SMcCandlish. Owen× ☎ 20:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Politics of Kerala or any related article to Kerala because judging by arguments of both Spworld2 and SMcCandlish, it seems there is some significance within India. Freinland (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to rename it as "Social Media Politics in Kerala"--- Spworld2 (tαlk) 01:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I find SMcCandlish's review of the sourcing to be the most persuasive and accurate of the above contributions and agree with them on that basis that the article shouldn't be retained. Daniel (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. There isn't as much participation here as I'd like, but I'm not seeing the GEOLAND argument being rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tando Jan Mohammad

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

This should meet WP:GEOLAND, a city allegedly this size, however it is unreferenced and I couldn't find sources to add. Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft keep - there's something at those coordinates with this name that shows up on google maps. This PDF refers to "RHS Tando Jan Muhammad", although I'm guessing as to what the RHC means (regional health clinic?) and the Asian Development Bank was doing a project at the Tando Jan Muhammad grid station . Maybe it's a spelling issues Mohammad vs. Muhammad? Do these back up the claims? Not really. Should we keep it because something is there that has notability? Probably but I'm not thrilled about it. Kazamzam (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Advanced search for: 
"ٽنڊو جان محمد"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting to get some assessment of additions to the article which was previously unreferenced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the city is mentioned in some news releases (e.g. [71], [72], [73]), and easily meets WP:GEOLAND. Owen× ☎ 20:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Discussion is trending keep, with editors claiming to have found significant coverage in Arabic. However, no discussion of these sources occurred, and late keep !votes were not adequately grounded in policy, due to either brevity or to the misindentification of WP:FPL, which is not a current policy or guideline and does not have any weight at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 15:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Al-Elewai

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

No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The only sources are dtatbase type entries on web sites, and the few sentences of text are just basic database type facts. North8000 (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed during NPP.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - have you bothered checking Arabic-language sources? Those would be very relevant to determine notability. Also, I think that the current name for the player is not the most commonly used English transliteration, so I would double check that too when looking for English-language sources. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - from my limited understanding of how to do research in Arabic, I'm finding sources like this which is SIGCOV, and I'm sure there are plenty of other sources. Player seems to be playing for a club with a large amount of press coverage for his country, and has won an international trophy at youth level for Saudi Arabia. I would say keep and improve the article rather than deleting it and having someone recreate it in a couple month's time. At the very very worst if no other sources are found, draftify. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. GiantSnowman 19:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per Paul Vaurie. I found [74], [75], among may more Arabic sources. Young player with ongoing fully pro career in one of most famous Saudi teams. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not proposing deletion. GiantSnowman 17:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a few Arabic sources out there if you bother to look, nothing much Englis-hwise however. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable player. Freinland (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: according to our WP:FPL, Footballers who have played a full international match for their country are deemed notable, and thus do not have to meet the specific notability criteria at this page.. The policy may very well be too permissive, but as long as we have it in place, the choice is clear. Owen× ☎ 14:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that sourcing isn't sufficient, and a merger has been discounted for myriad reasons-rendering it not a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 23:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Philip

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST with no significant, independent coverage available. The books cited in the article appear to be trivial mentions, with the remaining few available sources being interviews. The NY Times source is paywalled but seems to be a trivial mention as well.

The unsourced claim regarding being a founding contributor of Wired magazine might suggest notability, but there doesn't seem to be any substantiation for this except this, which is of questionable reliability and is an interview anyway. The Wired (magazine) article does not currently mention him by name at all and I've been unsuccessful in finding anything about him on Wired's website itself.

The article's talk page had someone in 2007 argue for notability but the points appear weak and/or outdated. Regardless, there's a dearth of reliable sources available for many of the claims. Uhai (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Fashion, United Kingdom, England, United States of America, and California. Uhai (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchic Adjustment. Uhai (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    seems like vandalism to delete this page and the Anarchic Adjustment one, if you feel some of the info is false/fake you could just edit it out, but deleting these pages removes the fact Nick exists and the company he started, even if his name was a pseudo, it is still perfectly valid to be here on Wikipedia, and the company does/did exist, the proof is all the clothing they made Neoterics (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neoterics That is not at all what vandalism is; please see Wikipedia:Vandalism. The prime concern of this AfD is Wikipedia:Notability, for which Wikipedia's standards are strict, not that there may be unsourced information or misinformation in the article. This discussion is currently trending in the direction of no consensus, meaning the article would be retained. Uhai (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
    • The books cited in the article appear to be trivial mentions - I disagree, WP:SIGCOV coverage does not need to be lengthy. Being characterized as a leading figure a particular genre or subculture by an authority like Simon Reynolds is not a "trivial mention".
    • I've been unsuccessful in finding anything about him on Wired's website itself. - I had no trouble finding several, and just added two of them as additional citations to the article. I changed "a founding contributor" to "an early contributor" because the source I happened upon is dated 1994 instead of 1993 (Wired's founding year), one would probably need to dig up a separate source about the magazine's early history to investigate this further.
    • Also not sure what outdated refers to. There is no requirement for sources to be recent to count as evidence for notability.
    • I also just added another SIGCOV citation (by David Pescovitz, focusing entirely on the article's subject) from 2016, additional evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By outdated I'm referring to what the notability criteria may have been in 2007 on Wikipedia. Maybe having an IMDb page or a product for sale on Amazon could have, alongside other points, justified retention of an article then, however they mean nothing today. I wasn't around this area back then so I wouldn't know. I was not arguing contrary to WP:NOTTEMPORARY.
Thanks for finding some additional sources including for Wired, though I'm still unconvinced WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST are met here especially since the reality of his work there may not be as grand as the "founding contributor" claim might have insinuated. And I disagree regarding WP:SIGCOV: it specifically mentions in detail so I would argue coverage should be at least somewhat lengthy. The cited portion of the Reynolds book mentions him once in the thesis statement for the section (pp. 149-150) and has a single paragraph about him, with much of the content of said paragraph being quotations from him (pp. 152-153). Aside from that, pp. 61, 155, and 307 contain additional quotations, each limited to one paragraph each. I don't see how his few mentions in this book are any more than trivial. If he's "characterized as a leading figure" of a genre or subculture, especially given the subject of this book being said genre/subculture, shouldn't there be more? Shouldn't there be a chapter or at least a section of a chapter dedicated to him? Uhai (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have augmented the article further using yet another SIGCOV RS citation, to i-D magazine. I saw that in the other AfD you had mentioned that piece, arguing that it's an interview [...] so isn't independent. But that doesn't apply the introduction of the piece, which was evidently written by the i-D journalist. (And the idea that a journalist or their publication somehow become closely affiliated with the subject of their coverage in the sense of WP:INDEPENDENT just by talking to that subject would be absurd; in fact, at least in the US, not doing so is considered a failure of journalistic quality standards, at least for some types of coverage.)
Thanks for the clarification regarding outdated and your various other thoughtful responses. But I don't follow those arguments for lengthiness requirements - the part of WP:SIGCOV you are referring to continues [...] so that no original research is needed to extract the content, making clear that the detail is a means to an end, an end which is served perfectly well in this specific case. As for If he's "characterized as a leading figure" of a genre or subculture, especially given the subject of this book being said genre/subculture, shouldn't there be more? - I'm sorry, but that argument is entirely off the mark. Simon Reynolds' book is not about a single "genre/subculture" but catalogs an enormous number of them as part of one broad paradigm (or several) spanning multiple decades across multiple countries, i.e. what the author calls "dance culture". The index alone is 21 pages long (I'm looking at the 2012 US edition, rather than the 1999 one currently cited in the article), consisting almost entirely of notable people, bands, venues etc. That's admittedly my subjective impression, but I actually just confirmed it empirically by going through the letter "Z", where all but one of the entries have a Wikipedia article, with the remaining one (Zone Records) being a redirect. And all of these have fewer mentions in the book than Nick Philip. In other words, your counterfactual seems highly implausible. A well-known expert's comprehensive overview, written years or decades after the fact, can't be examined in the same way for the purposes of WP:GNG as a contemporary news or magazine article, or a specialist book entirely devoted to a single obscure niche topic.
To clarify just in case and for the record: I didn't create this article and have had some issues with some wordings and claims in previous revisions. But at this point I think WP:GNG is clearly satisfied.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the i-D article: you are correct that I said that and are correct that WP:IS can still apply to the introduction of an interview. However, it is just a brief introduction and context-setter that any interview would have and doesn't really provide the substance I would look for to make a case for WP:GNG. Looking over the article again, I am now a little concerned if it is some sort of paid article because of the number of images at the bottom of the article of the upcoming (at the time of publishing) products along with a link to the store and release date and time for the products. I'm not sure if i-D does paid articles but per WP:VICE it does appear there is not currently community consensus on whether Vice Media publications are reliable. I haven't yet dug into the discussions to see why those who don't think it's reliable think so, whether it's for promotional or other concerns. Of course, there being no consensus doesn't mean Vice Media is not reliable, but I am concerned about i-D and this article in particular. If you or someone else more knowledgeable than I could weigh in, it would be appreciated. If the article is just a "let us interview you for clicks and we'll plug your stuff" type of symbiotic relationship, does this introduce WP:RS concerns—even if no money exchanged hands?
As far as the Reynolds book goes, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I would not make the case that subjects with fewer mentions in the book than Nick Philip having articles justifies the retention of this one. These subjects may also not be notable or may have more significant coverage elsewhere than what Phillip has. The bigger issue with the book is that Phillip's <6 mentions across it mostly consist of quotations from the man himself.
Thanks for the clarification regarding your involvement and previous concerns with the article. While I mentioned in the other AfD that there appears to have been some COI editing on both articles over the years, the reasoning for the nominations comes purely from concerns of notability.
This is an interesting discussion so hopefully we can get some participation from other editors as well to arrive at some consensus. Uhai (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Cyberdelic as he does seem to be a part of that movement, but does not merit a stand-alone article. So much of the article is a long-winded description of his day job. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Uhai: Generally speaking i-D is a well-reputed fashion magazine, founded in 1980 by a former art director of the British Vogue. (I actually started the German Wikipedia article about it way back in 2005, which the English one was based on ;) WP:VICE isn't really very pertinent here, as none of the community discussions that it summarizes covered or even mentioned i-D specifically (I just checked), and most of them appear to have been about the RS status of Vice (magazine), Vice News and other specific publications rather than Vice Media in general (although I haven't checked in detail).

"let us interview you for clicks" - to repeat myself: the idea that a journalist or their publication somehow become closely affiliated with the subject of their coverage (in the sense of WP:INDEPENDENT) just by talking to that subject would be absurd (in fact, at least in the US, not doing so is considered a failure of journalistic quality standards, at least for some types of coverage). Likewise, insinuating that a news publication can't be regarded as reliable because it publishes articles designed to attract readership (clicks) is far removed from both journalistic practice and Wikipedia policy. As for the particular worry that this article could be a covert promotion (I am now a little concerned if it is some sort of paid article): I'm not too familiar with UK advertising regulations for print and online news media, but I kind assume that they would require disclosure in that situation. (Some other i-D articles do disclose the use of affiliate links, which isn't really a RS concern - the New York Times makes quite a bit of money with these too.) And the mere fact that the article mentions the release date and time for the products (and depicts some of them) is no evidence of that. It is standard practice in reputable fashion media to cover new products, as it is indeed in cultural journalism in general - book reviews in RS publications will usually include specific purchasing information for the book including its price, movie reviews in quality newspapers routinely state "In theaters Dec 1" etc., respected art magazines will cover current exhibitions together with information specifically designed to facilitate visiting that exhibition (museum location, dates etc). And so on - a lot political news coverage is driven by politicians' press releases and announcements, many investigative journalism stories are triggered by what self-interested sources decide to make available to journalists, etc. Now, if all these general facts are new to you, sure, you can worry about symbiotic relationships, earned media, or otherwise engage in generic media criticism. But all this has little to do with whether the publication in question has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in the sense of WP:RS.

Re OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: That wasn't my argument above when comparing the level of coverage of Nick Philip in Reynolds' book to that of other (undisputably notable) subjects - rather it was a reductio ad absurdum of your shouldn't there be more? argument against notability.

@WomenArtistUpdates: Merge into Cyberdelic as he does seem to be a part of that movement - are there reliable sources supporting that claim? I doubt that it is true; at least the term appears to have never appeared in the article's 17 year revision history. a long-winded description of his day job - what kind of argument is that? Shouldn't an article about an artist or designer actually focus on their work in the profession they are known for? How is this different from articles like say Esther Heins?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HaeB, I have struck the merge suggestion. The source I saw is https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/user/nick-philip/authored but as you point out, not enough to classify him as part of the movement. The difference between Esther Heins and Nick Philip is that she is dead and her work is in the collection of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Philip is alive and not verifiably in any notable collections. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. The difference between Esther Heins and Nick Philip is that she is dead and her work is in the collection of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts - death doesn't contribute to notability, but I understand that with the latter part you are referring to WP:ARTIST 4.d). However, that's not the only possible notability criterion here, hence all the conversation above especially about WP:GNG. But come to think of it, your source (the MIT Journal of Design and Science page) says that his design work is included in the permanent collection of SFMOMA, so that would actually count towards WP:ARTIST 4.d) too. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The SFMOMA claim is unverifiable. The bio on JoDS can't be considered reliable and I am not finding Nick Philip in the SFMOMA database. Also being dead doesn't confirm being notable, but the subject being alive certainly opens the article up to more scrutiny. The nominator's statement that there is no significant, independent coverage available has not been disproved. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I consider WP:GNG to be satisfied, as detailed above. (Btw, I've also since added another citation, to a Hypebeast.com article.)
As for the subject being alive, I still disagree about this being a factor in evaluating notability. Maybe you meant that article about dead people are not susceptible to COI editing (which would be at best half true), or that notable people often attract additional RS coverage upon their death? On that matter, I find it interesting that an obituary on legacy.com is presented as the only independent SIGCOV in the aforementioned Esther Heins article. I'm not sure that Legacy.com can be considered a RS in itself, and its claim that the obituary was also published by the Boston Globe seems very difficult to verify (I am not finding Esther Heins in the online database at https://www.bostonglobe.com/ - a search results in "0 Results for 'Esther Heins'", as does a site search with Google), and leaves open the question whether this was WP:INDEPENDENT coverage written by the Boston Globe's journalists or a paid obituary. (I'm not trying to make an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and I'm also not planning to nominate this or other of your articles for deletion. I'm just surprised to see an editor who appears to have created various borderline notable biography articles come up with several spurious deletion arguments here that are not grounded in policy.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my media skepticism was leaking into my reply. I understand you believe i-D is reputable though it would be nice if there was some discussion in this community regarding i-D's current reliability; it being under the umbrella of WP:VICE should give cause for contemplation at the very least given lack of consensus for other Vice publications being reliable. Though at the end of the day, the i-D article is still an interview, so even if we posit the article isn't paid and i-D is a 100% reliable publication (both of which may very well be the case), there's nothing there, again, besides the brief introduction of the interviewees. Could this introduction be used as a source for some information in the article? Sure—and it is for two sentences, which is about the most you'll get out of it. Does it contribute at all to whether the subject meets WP:GNG? No.
The fact that we've dug into this much detail regarding the sources I think is a litmus test for the lack of notability here. When we're debating whether an interview introduction and a few quotes from the subject in a book contribute to a claim of the criteria of WP:GNG being met, the point is proven. The reason some articles like this are stubs and have issues with unverified or unverifiable information—and the reason these things have been the case since the article's inception in 2006—is simply because there's a scarcity of coverage and there always has been. Obviously I'm not the first to believe this given the PROD back in 2007 that was contested by yourself, and what limited coverage has emerged in the years since then has not improved the case for notability. Uhai (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Has GNG been met? Some dispute over it, more (other editors) eyes may lead to a consensus either way on this issue.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the lengthiness of AfD discussion is not is a litmus test for the lack of notability. Rather, what's been taking most room above are multiple spurious arguments for deletion - not just this digression into generic media criticism that I felt compelled to respond to by outlining various journalistic standards, but also other arguments for deletion that either had nothing to do with policy or were factually wrong (say the insinuation that the Wired website does not mention him), and their debunking. In fact, that "litmus test" argument is another such faulty argument in itself. Similarly, I think the claim that the article has been a "stub" and [has had] issues with unverified or unverifiable information [...] since [its] inception in 2006 is rather misleading - the 2006 version cited no references at all and was considerably shorter, whereas most of the information in the present version is well-sourced at this point. I also just removed one remaining unsourced sentence about an exhibition and added another sourced sentence about a different, more recent (2022) exhibition.
I have explained in detail above why I consider the i-D and Reynolds SIGCOV and mentioned other SIGCOV too. And we haven't even discussed other existing sources yet, e.g. the 1998 piece from "Shift", a Japanese magazine that I am not familiar with but which appears to have been used by editors in many other articles and which (as article topic) has been a requested article for a long time. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I found another book ("Psychedelics Reimagined", published by Autonomedia in 1999) which based on this Google Books preview is clearly another SIGCOV RS (quoting the article subject at length in one part, and summarizing his views in another, some other pages that mention him are not displayed in this particular preview for me). Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've both made our opinions quite clear at this point so I will not address further your criticisms of the arguments made here as this discussion may approach WP:BLUDGEON territory. I do hope we can gain participation from other editors otherwise I will give it some time and re-nominate at a later date in another attempt to seek consensus. Thanks for your thoughts and your efforts to find sources and improve the article. Uhai (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG. I do not find the Reynolds book to be significant coverage because the discussion of Philips there is not sufficiently in depth. The i-D interview weakly contributes to notability because although it's an interview, I think i-D is sufficiently reliable and notable in itself such that the fact that they chose to interview him establishes some notability. The Joi Ito Wired article mentions Philip twice, and the author acknowledges that he was the distributor of Philips' clothing. The NY Times and East Bay Express articles contain passing mentions of Philip. The Boing Boing articles and the other Wired article do not discuss Philip in depth either. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2023 (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) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Meir

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

I believe this article qualifies for deletion under a variety of policies; however the most relevant are WP:ARTIST/WP:GNG. More specifically, w/ regards to the former, the only permanent exhibit of Rami Meir's artwork is hosted by the Union of Mountain Jewish Artists of Russia (hereafter UMJAR), an organization he was the chairman of. Further, with the research I've done, all sources regarding the article subject seem to lack WP:RELIABILITY, with most of the references (both listed and others I found through research) seeming to violate WP:COI, if not directly WP:SELFSOURCE. For those sources for which I was not able to find direct evidence of CoI, I have significant concerns about WP:PARTISAN, due to a consistent lack of citations within the sources as well as other issues. To expound on a few of these claims further:

  • With regard to the various Azerbaijani news sources (the one referencing Meir most frequently being media.az, but all the sources I've found in this category share similar flaws), ensuring that these sources are verifiable or reputable has been difficult. Admittedly, this could be due to language/cultural barriers so I welcome input from those more familiar; however due to the concerns RE media freedoms in Azerbaijan, and the lack of citations or similar journalistic practices, these sources lack any way to verify their accuracy and independence. Media.az--again as an example--lacks any listed author on its article pages. The only contributor I can find evidence of on the site is their editor-in-chief, who received an honorary journalism degree directly from the President of Azerbaijan, along with others in the publication's leadership team. While this doesn't necessarily prove that that the source is biased, it does add further strain to the reputability IMO.

There are additional concerns I have about the article's quality; however for the most part they don't necessarily reach the reasons for deletion in their own right, so I'll not mention them unless they become relevant. KJGinger (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know enough about poet and musician notability, but far as his artwork most everything is PR or passing mentions user generated. fails WP:ARTIST. Hoping someone from another sort list will comment. As far as the reasons listed in (UMJAR etc.) I don't feel I can address. The specificity of the request makes this article hard to vote on. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no improvement or participation since I looked for sources on 11 November 2023. Fails WP:ARTIST and reads like promotion of a living person. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG, [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]. I think a search for Ра́ми Ме́ир would turn up more.  // Timothy :: talk  12:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems ok, but needs to be better sourced. Since most sources appear to come from the same website. Furthermore, it appears he is notable enough considering career as well as chairmanship of artistic union. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 30 November 2023 (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. ✗plicit 01:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Shruti Settipalli

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

Sources run of the mail facebook account, imdb, all and all poorly sourced. Sources are not secdondary or independent dont meet WPINDP or WP:SIRS Comintell (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All I find are PR items [81], [82] which at least confirms it's written by ANI PR, [83] and [84], none of which are RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article needs inline citations and may have originated for promotional purposes, but still meets notability. I dug through the listed sources and converted the bare URLs into citations. It turns out that two of the sources do provide significant coverage that is independent and reliable. "Lakshmi Shruti Setttipalli Was Intrigued by Squash When She First Saw It Played" is published in Prosquash, the leading source for squash in India (where the sport is big). The other solid source is the extensive article, "I Want To Be The Best" in the Deccan Chronicle. Rublamb (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As has been pointed out, there is some coverage. That said, it falls short a bit of the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see what's wrong with the Deccan Chronicle article; that's an extensive full-page feature story. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2023 (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. While I sympathise with a number of the comments regarding how difficult it is finding sources that provide SIGCOV and therefore notability as defined by Wikipedia's inclusion standards, the upshot is that as we do not provide original research we need this material to exist to have articles on the site. The consensus is that the coverage is not significant and therefore doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Daniel (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryang Myong-il

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: playing 11 international matches is more than enough to establish notability of a footballer. Dazzling4 (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The number is international caps isn't relevant when establishing notability as per WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, the fact he played internationally is irrelevant and does not inherently confer any notability. Angelo (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Will probably get deleted (as will most NK articles), but I've added as much as I could find in Chinese media. Being a North Korean footballer, it is impossible to find any coverage in North Korean media, as it is not accessible, though I've no doubt there is coverage within the nation. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The criteria used for these North Korean players are terrible. Nam Song-chol, who played in the 2010 FIFA World Cup, was deleted (arbitrarily in my opinion, as the discussion did not reach a clear consensus). Svartner (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that recent additions to the article can be assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing above, BEFORE, or in article meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  13:42, 4 December 2023 (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. While there was valid disagreement over the applicability of BLP1E in this context for various reasons, keep arguments did not rebut the concerns raised regarding depth of available independent coverage in light of the article's status as a BLP, and deletion enjoys both a numerical majority and momentum towards the end of the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 15:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Hatley

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

Subject appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E due to winning a beauty pageant, with a lack of sustained coverage with which to pass the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the new sources listed above help, beyond confirming the pageant win and doing things after as a pageant winner, and they aren't terribly long either, most have a big photo, then a few paragraphs. The peeing tom incident doesn't add to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree. If someone peeps on me, it will not make the news.KatoKungLee (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: for the reasons mentioned about by KatoKungLee. The level of coverage takes this beyond that of BLP1E. Rublamb (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: ridiculously irrelevant. Unless we're now creating articles for squirrels. MisterWizzy (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
say what? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree with KatoKungLee's assessment of the sources; as this is a relatively low-profile individual, the sourcing level for controversial claims is a lot higher, per WP:BLPSOURCES. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per KatoKungLee. The criteria in BLP1E #3 clearly state: We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: [...] 3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.. In our case, The two events - Miss Tennessee 2011 and Miss America 2012 - were both significant, and Hatley's role in both was unarguably substantial and well documented. Owen× ☎ 20:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per OwenX arguemtn against 1e which appears more sound than delete voters. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. @OwenX: and others are misapplying BLP1E, I believe; Miss Tennessee is the competition that chooses the state's representative to the subsequent Miss America Pageant, and as such the coverage being discussed here all stems from the same event. More importantly, we have two short sentences of content we can write that is independent of the pageant itself. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it is one event or two, nothing changes the fact that this doesn't meet requirement #3 of BLP1E: the event (or events) is significant, and her role in it was substantial and well-documented. There may be valid reasons to delete this article, but BLP1E isn't one of them. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Freinland (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sourcing needs to be impeccable for BLP sources, and quite frankly I don't think is here as proposed. Per Ritchie333. Daniel (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hohem

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

Solid NCORP fail. Every single hit one can find on Googe is a PR piece obviously written or paid for by the company, as are all the references. Page author claims to be from NZ, but has this inexplicable interest in Chinese tech companies. No response to previous COI query on talk. Fermiboson (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*I propose keeping the article on Hohem. This company has received notable third-party recognition, including the Red Dot and IF Design Awards, which are significant in establishing its notability. These awards are independent of the company's self-published materials, adding to the article's credibility.

To enhance the article, I suggest:
Loving This Mayweather (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE per This[reply]
Yes, those would help; do you have any you can add, rather than simply restating policy to us (we're intimately familiar with AfD policy), thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you, or are you not, the same person or affiliated in any manner with any of the following:
  • User:Voxl
  • The corporation that is the subject of this article
  • Kevin Xu
Moreover, have you used large language models such as ChatGPT in the process of drafting up your above comment? Fermiboson (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I deny the association you mentioned; my stance is solely based on Wikipedia's preference for improving articles over deletion when objective facts are presented. I am merely stating facts without any bias. I adhere to all Wikipedia rules, and if any evidence suggests that I have violated any regulations, please feel free to block my account. Loving This Mayweather (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Fermiboson (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of significant third-party coverage. I'll chance my vote if coverage can be demonstrated.Cortador (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This product review has a by-line in a site that seems RS, [87]. Not sure how much notability that adds, but it's one source... Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough reference to pass Notablity.

Bimanmandal (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepTo argue for retaining the Hohem article on Wikipedia based on significant coverage in third-party sources:
1.Award Recognition: Hohem's receipt of prestigious awards like the Red Dot Design Award and iF Design Award provides significant, independent third-party recognition, meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria.
2.Independent Coverage: Information about these awards on the official Red Dot and iF Design websites serves as reliable, independent sources, essential for Wikipedia's standards.
3.Public Interest: The awards indicate Hohem's relevance and contribution to technology, aligning with Wikipedia's goal of providing publicly interesting information.
1.Red Dot Design Award: iSteady V22.Red Dot Design Award: Hohem iSteady3.Hohem iSteady M6 phone gimbal - IfdesignPulebbbhngg (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how, as an account with only one edit, you have managed to find this AfD. Fermiboson (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are just a university student in China, and you are still young. Please don't use your worldview to interpret this world, for it is vast. Just because you haven't seen a B2 bomber in China, does that mean you don't know of its existence? Thank you! Pulebbbhngg (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a university student in China. Fermiboson (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that these rewards are relevant, you need to demonstrate that they have received independent coverage. Cortador (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear from more editors who are not socks or one edit accounts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ordinarily I'd want to say the existence of lots of product users (and they seem to have a lot of users, even in google scholar results) would generate interest among encyclopedia users, and would want to see the article retained. The nominator's conclusion coverage is all bought-and-paid-for seems unsupportable.
But there's so little on this company as a company rather than their products, that it doesn't seem that anyone cares about them as a company. I did a search for Chinese sources and only found one (aside from product reviews) that seems even close to significant coverage:
  • A lengthy article in an independent source, more along the lines of earned media than a company-produced piece but still very reliant on the company [88]
If someone can come up with additional reliable sources I'll reconsider my vote. But I don't see the value in an article that's basically a list of product releases and some uncited/primary-sourced text. Oblivy (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete due to lack of independent third-party coverage. Cortador (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC) (duplicate !vote struck) Elemimele (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 22:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I see unanimous agreement that the definition of "conservative left" is unclear and the article shouldn't stay in its current form. The idea of a selective merge has not gained additional traction, so I see a rough consensus for deletion. Complex/Rational 16:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative left

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

OR/SYNTH/possible POV fork. Sources are cited to biased publications (including, in one case, a Japanese source which refers to the magazine of an extremely minor HK party claiming to be "conservative left"). No evidence of use of the term in mainstream media, and the article text characterisation of the concept is also, well, questionably put. Fermiboson (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: A search suggests that the term is used somewhat frequently, but there seems to be no consensus on what it means, and it's applied to all kinds of people and parties in various articles and op-eds. This needs some academic backing before it deserves an article. Cortador (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The idea of a ”conservative left” is impossible and receives no authoritative support from the scholarly literature on the topic. Trakking (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively into Conservatism where some of the information already exists. I disagree that this is OR or SYNTH since at least one source (Kaufman, 2020) supports the basis of the article. However, there is not nearly enough scholarship on this phenomenon to support a stand-alone article, and Conservatism has better and better-sourced material. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any additional support for a possible selective Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: this is a poor attempt at WP:SYNTH of a couple disparate ideas, none of which really hold water. I find it difficult to understand any of what the article is trying to say. I think a selective merge is unnecessary – the only interesting thing in this article is the citation to the Kaufman (2020) article. An author might consider throwing its thesis into the already-existing left-wing nationalism or liberal conservatism articles, but the text on this article is not worth salvaging. Dan • ✉ 21:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Campbell

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, Costa Rica, and Haiti. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article in The Guardian alone is enough to comply with the WP:GNG, and there are other reliable sources. For anyone willing to spend some time on improving our coverage of the diplomatic profession, which is important, instead of attacking it, this would be an easy article to improve significantly. Moonraker (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Supporting deletion is not attacking a profession. The AfD process is a legitimate part of WP. LibStar (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is attacking a profession, but simply restating policy; people don't get a "pass" here for being ambassadors, we need sourcing about the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course the AfD process is legitimate, LibStar, but it is best pursued by people who do not come to it with an agenda. You have this long list on your user page, do you also have a list of diplomatic articles you have created or improved? Moonraker (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      that question is irrelevant to the notability of Sharon Campbell. LibStar (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moonraker, I can confirm that LibStar does in fact have an "agenda" which I've seen him following for some time: deleting articles which don't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. We sometimes disagree at AfDs but I'm glad he's doing this. For biographies of living people we have an additional duty of care to ensure notability and referencing. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find sources talking about the ambassador; source 4 from the Times is fine, but we need more than just an announcement of the appointment. Has the person done anything in their role the press wrote about? Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Sharon Campbell is a notable figure and the sources there in are credible and reliable like the times, gov.uk so instead of deleting it, just an improvement to it would be better. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    .gov.uk is a primary source. LibStar (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete disregarding the gov.uk primary sources, the rest of the sources are mainly based on interviews. I know Wikipedia:Interviews is just an essay but I'm a bit wary of interviews as reliable sources, so leaning to delete here. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per The Guardian article and this Tico Times article I just added to the list of refs:[89] --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep per AB's source above and The Guardian source. Whilst the Gov website is primary, the interviews also show notability in my opinion – if she was not notable, the would have likely not been conducted or published. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, no consensus. Giving this one more week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Reliable secondary sources prove notability. Rublamb (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Barclay

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

Redirected via AfD 10 years ago and the point still stands. The character fails WP:GNG and the article is currently full of plot summaries. Attempted to boldly blank and redirect but was reverted, seeing if a consensus can be formed here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Formalizing my rec after reviewing the sources above a second time. —siroχo 03:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Junction

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

Fails WP:NORG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- First of all nom doesn't offer a valid reason for deletion. As is well known the quality of the prose is irrelevant and if nom doesn't like it they're free to edit it, as are we all. Secondly, this org clearly meets the GNG, let alone NORG. Here are some sources: [93] [94] [95] [96]. Central and Adams (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Maybe needs some updating. I've noted and sourced that founder Dr. Jeremy Reynalds died in 2018. I've also added that Joy Junction opened a thrift shop this year. Also added the 2023 Halloween “Trick-or-Treat So Others May Eat” event. — Maile (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2023 (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 07:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1950 Afghan invasion of Pakistan

1950 Afghan invasion of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems unreliably sourced, doesn't seem to be any real academic reliable sources behind it. The sources don't even state this as an invasion either, and more as a border skirmish, which there is already pages for. Noorullah (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So my proposal is this: Delete the page if the information cannot be verified with better sources, and if it can, integrate it into the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes page. Noorullah (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not true, in my sources, according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), I have used reliable sources, such as Violent non-state actors in the Afghanistan–Pakistan relations in the Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Pakistan, which states “It didn’t take long for Pakistan to repel this rather crude invasion.”
There isnt “only one source” which you stated earlier, this can be backed up in the Yale Journal where it is stated: “It didn’t take long for Pakistan to repel this low-scale invasion, and its government announced that it had “driven invaders from Afghanistan back across the border after six days of fighting.”
There are also sources from that time period such as the associated press, which on 5th of October stated “Invaders Out, Pakistan Says” and the Chicago tribune states this as well (even though you need a subscription to see the archive). Therefore I don’t think your reasons are valid for the deletion of this article, this event in history happened and it doesn’t deserve a passing mention buried in a skirmish page. VirtualVagabond (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the associated press. I’m obviously saying the 5th of October in 1950, just clearing that up. VirtualVagabond (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This source has no mention of it: [97]
This is an article page: [98]
[99] - Aparna Pande is not a scholarly source.
[100] - Not a reliable source at all.
[101] - This is not a reliable source at all, and doesn't even seem to mention it.
To simply conclude, none of these sources are entirely reliable, and some of these are entirely passing comments. It needs to be verified by proper scholarly sources, and if it can be verified, I am still advocating for it to be otherwise merged, unless that source can explicitly state it was an invasion. Noorullah (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thank you for taking your time to respond.
The first source wasn’t meant to cite the invasion, rather it was supposed to cite that Afghanistan and Pakistan had a strained relationship since Pakistan’s independence, which I was talking about in the Background section.
As for the second source, according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), historical articles are permitted except if they are covering present day events or events that occurred in the last two years.
Also, in the “Reliable sources for weighting and article structure” section, point 2, 4 and 8 permits different types of articles, so I’m not sure why my citation would be a problem.
For citation 3: Aparna Pande is an experienced author and journalist who works at the Hudson Institute, which suggests her reliability.
For citation 4 and 5, could you please tell me what makes them unreliable? If you can prove so, I will be more than happy to remove/replace them, also, the fifth citation isn’t there to cite the invasion, but the unpopularity of the “Frontier Corps Balochistan”, which is a paramilitary force in Pakistan.
And I’m not sure what your definition of a passing mention is, it’s a book about a large chunk of Pakistan’s foreign policy, and the invasion was given expansion and sources in the references I gave. The evidence for it being an invasion was given in my last comment. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see with the first source.
@VirtualVagabond
----
Citation 3: An author and journalist does not follow under HIST:RS. I quote from Who is a Historian on HIST:RS
"Historians carry out original research, often using primary sources. Historians often have a PhD or advanced academic training in historiography, but may have an advanced degree in a related social science field or a domain specific field;" See here as well: Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Advice by subject area as what defines a reliable source for this matter.
---
Both the sources (for 4 and 5) are purely blog sites, which isn't reliable information especially to talk about the unpopularity of something, a reliable book would be better.
---
In this case alone, the article for the second source isn't enough as its not scholarly, and there is otherwise, no scholarly source to further verify. To prove this is an invasion, it needs a reliable secondary -- especially a scholarly source to state it is an invasion, not a contemporary news report off of what one side said during the conflict, (regarding the associated press). Noorullah (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Jamestown Foundation is a perfectly reputable research organization, working on a number of issues.
However this article in Asian Survey in 1962 calls the 1949 and 1950 fighting "border incidents."
This (in December 1955) calls it "border incidents" .."Pakistan protested to Afghanistan for the violation of her territory by Afghan tribesmen and elements belonging to Afghan Army." Buckshot06 (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that is true, then that is fair game, but as aforementioned by VirtualVagabond, the Jamestown foundation was cited for something else.
And seeing the other sources you provided stating that it was border incidents supports what I believe that it should be merged into the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes page. @Buckshot06 Noorullah (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My citation 3 stands, in Wikipedia:HISTRS#Who is a historian, it states: "Historians carry out original research, often using primary sources. Historians often have a PhD or advanced academic training in historiography, but may have an advanced degree in a related social science field or a domain specific field;” Aparna Pande has a degree in political science, which is a related social science, therefore her citation is viable. The fifth citation also happens to be cleared up as reliable now as seen from Buckshot06’s reply earlier. And I’m not sure how the fourth citation is a blog, but I will replace it if you want.
Also from Buckshot06’s earlier reply, the word “incident” doesn’t mean it’s a skirmish. Again, it was a low-scale invasion. It was clearly an invasion due to the sources I gave and the fact that the Afghan tribesmen and army infiltrated into internationally-recognised Pakistani land, which satisfies the definition of an invasion.
The Oxford Languages dictionary definition for invasion: “an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.”
The 1950 invasion was a clear example of this. VirtualVagabond (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aparna Pande is an author, not a historian. There would need to be more reliable sources that can verify such.
The fifth citation (being jamestown), doesn't mention the conflict and is related to a different citation which you mentioned.
The economic and political weekly is not a reliable source to cite for this.
There is no reliable sources calling it an invasion as addressed.
The sources buckshot added mention it as an incident, not an invasion. And on the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes, many of the skirmishes were described as incidents. Noorullah (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being an author and historian are not mutually exclusive my friend, you can be both. Also, at Historian, under objectivity then modern, it states “However, in the 20th-century historians incorporated social science dimensions like politics, economy, and culture in their historiography, including postmodernism.” Pande has a degree in a social science, which is political science.
The fifth citation as I have already said, isn’t citing the invasion but the unpopularity of the Frontier Corps in the province of Balochistan, you even confirmed this with Buckshot06. But you know what the odd thing is, I got that same exact source from the background section of Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes, the very same article that you’re desperately pushing for this incident to stay in only. So I’m not sure what the issue is, unless it’s double standards, but I’m assuming good faith from you. 👍
Also, it being an incident, doesn’t mean it wasn’t an invasion, again, it’s not mutually exclusive.
A invasion is an incident, a skirmish is an incident, a full-blown total war is an incident. Everything that happens in history is an incident my friend. That doesn’t disprove anything. VirtualVagabond (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but having a degree in social science does not register you as an automatically reliable source, or even a historian. Citing the definition of a historian off of Wikipedia itself isn't going to help your case.
I'm not sure why you are still going over the fifth citation, or what you meant after the sentence. I already addressed it twice that it is irrelevant to this AFD now. I'm not sure what you mean "unless its double standards", obtaining it from the background section there means nothing or has any correlation to this AFD.
Again, no reliable sources have said it was an invasion,. Noorullah (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no reliable sources stating it is an invasion, it does not otherwise deserve its own page. The Border skirmishes page already clearly states what the definition of these include, and it applies to this article I quote:
A series of occasional armed skirmishes and firefights have occurred along the Afghanistan–Pakistan border between the Afghan Armed Forces and the Pakistan Armed Forces since 1949. Noorullah (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was already on the page in fact, until you added a created page for it, which it does not deserve its own page for. [102]
I fail to see how this deserves its own page per WP:Notability, and even WP:Verifiability, it has little to no notability in reliable academic sources. From a quick search on google books for "1950 Afghan invasion of pakistan", there is effectively no results. Noorullah (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the historian claim, I used the same link you used to claim that my citations did not meet Wikipedia guidelines, which is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), as you can see, it talks about objectivity under “Who is a historian?, where it then takes you to the Historian page. All in all, I simply used your guideline link you said I didn’t abide by to prove that I did. Also, there is a source for the fact that objective historians can be people well-versed in social sciences outside Wikipedia, it’s: Georg G. Iggers, Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge, 1-4.
Also, we can always have differences in who a historian is, Pande published a book in a historical political fashion, and she has not just made it about Pakistan but various other countries, documenting on the HISTORICAL context behind current-day events.
Also, you never clearly said it was irrelevant to the AfD, you brung up the fact that it had nothing to do with the invasion a second time, even though we were past it at that stage.
Again, the sources I gave you clearly states it was an invasion, and what the Afghans did can be fully classified as an invasion, as they violated another nation’s sovereign territory.
As with Google Books, that of course would happen, there were a lot of variations, one said low-scale invasion and the other would say another. Also a lot of sources of this were present around the time of the invasion, some of which were in 1950 itself, so of course they wouldn’t say 1950 invasion. In conclusion, there were no set name for the invasion, but I used the year to make things run smoother, such as prevention from confusion with the Bajaur Campaign, if you have a more appropriate name, you can give me a appropriate name to move it to, or if you would like to.
Also, I imagine a lot of the sources for this invasion to be written in Urdu or Pashto, none of which I am fluent in, this therefore blocks me off to a large number of citations I could use. VirtualVagabond (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point remains: the Jamestown Foundation is reliable; there's no justification for disparaging its analysis. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per analysis by Noorullah. The battle fails WP:GNG. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been documented in books, journals, newspapers from that time and probably many more, giving it significant coverage. VirtualVagabond (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am yet to see anything substantial from reliable sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, could you please tell me why my sources aren’t credible? If so, I am willing to accept whatever the result of this AfD brings. VirtualVagabond (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above analysis. Toadette (Happy holiday!) 17:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes. Whether or not the fighting was technically an invasion, most sources do not call it that, and it was small. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, could you please show me some sources that do not classify it as an invasion but as something else that contradicts it? Thanks. VirtualVagabond (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but asking others for a source against it does not require them to post one. YOU are supposed to do so with a reliable source, see WP:ONUS. Noorullah (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, you’re right and I completely understand, but my points with you still stand. But we have differing views on what constitutes a historian. VirtualVagabond (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Given the scarcity of any scholarly sources, I don't see a reason for keeping the article or merging it somewhere. Azuredivay (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At first I thought this can be merged, but even that is difficult for me to support. desmay (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2023 (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 snow keep‎. (non-admin closure) Shoerack (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Satterthwaite

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

Notability. While Satterthwaite may be known for his theorems, few alternative secondary sources exist about him. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles (for this topic articles include: Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem, Muller–Satterthwaite theorem, and Myerson–Satterthwaite theorem) or lists are often merged into those pages, while non-notable topics without such merge targets are generally deleted. I have failed to find sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of this subject. On 13 Feb 2018, I posted on the talk page calling for good faith efforts to determine notoriety, find additional sources, to then attempt to merge any independently-verifiable content into a broader article, however no such information appears to have been found and thus this article meets the criteria for deletion. Thank you. Aeroplanepics0112 (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per criterion 5 of Notability (academics) guideline:
    • "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon."
Additionally, Google Scholar indicates Dr. Satterthwaite's publications have been cited 14,586 times. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easy passes of WP:Prof#C1 and WP:Prof#C5. Nominator should carry out WP:Before before making further nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per above, the citations for individual papers are very impressive as well, including a couple over 3000 by Google scholar's count. —siroχo 06:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Beyond the above (and the multiple earlier named chairs listed by his faculty bio), he has a double pass of WP:PROF#C3 evident in the article at the time of nomination, through fellowship in the Econometric Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (by far the better of the two AAAS's). It's not a long article. You should read it before nominating it for deletion, and understand how what you read relates to our academic notability standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets multiple NPROF criteria and in addition having his name in several notable theorems further reinforces notability. --Mvqr (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gulzoda Amirova

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

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. Passing mentions such as 1, 2 and 3 was all that came up in searches. JTtheOG (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yudisleivi Reyes

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

The subject, a Cuban women's footballer, seemingly made a single appearance for her respective national team. I was unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, nor is there any other indication of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to France at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Archery. Daniel (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Dauchez

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

Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. Only source in the article is an Olympedia source which is not in-depth coverage, and does not satisfy notability guidelines. A BEFORE search doesn't show anything promising either. Tails Wx 03:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it apears the person was of some notable in the early 20th century, the article exists in several languages but I do agree that more sources must be added and more that the article at its current state is poor. At its current state I think you're right. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing in Newspapers.com or ProQuest. We can't assume everyone got sustained SIGCOV.
JoelleJay (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rory J. Cutaia

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Links are to interviews (primary sources) and promotional content such as PR copy and articles that he has written. ... discospinster talk 03:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 03:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I prodded this but it was removed, The links used are primary or brief profiles. Nothing else found in RS Oaktree b (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sourcing currently used is either primary or trivial coverage. A Google search only brings up these links, PR items or social media. Google news only delivers PR items. Should be deleted for lack of extensive coverage in reliable sources." was the prod reason. Oaktree b (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Technology, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google doesn't show much significant, independent coverage of him. On Newspapers.com, there were various passing mentions or quotes from him in newspaper articles, especially when he worked as an attorney, but almost all were not significant. Altogether, these mainly local, passing mentions don't seem enough to combine into notability. These were the 3 best sources I saw on Newspapers.com:
    • [103] - Substantial coverage, but the writer discloses an affiliation (that Cutaia was an investor in, and producer of, an independent film he wrote), making it likely not independent enough
    • [104][105] - Coverage of him organizing a community effort to buy a local store that was going to close: the Middlebrook General Store. Both were written by the same local newspaper.
      - Whisperjanes (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems like if he founded a company that was sold for over a billion dollars, there would be more substantial coverage of this millionaire. Makes me wonder if his role in that company was exaggerated. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was also mention of crypto in the last go-around at AfD, wondering if this is still some sort of PROMO for whatever business he's currently involved with. Oaktree b (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George McGovern in popular culture

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

Not sure why this is a separate article from the main George McGovern page. Very few references and is mostly trivia. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 03:07, 30 November 2023 (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. As with the previous AfD, there is consensus not to delete, but no consensus to keep or merge. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Native Plants Journal

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

This article was kept after a "no consensus" AfD almost 3 years ago in February 2021. Since then nothing has changed: the journal is still not indexed in any selective databases and there are no independent sources. In the previous debate several arguments were brought forward to argue in favor of notability, but none was supported by sources, making this a clear fail of WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. There does not appear to be a good merge target. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, Canada, Mexico, United States of America, Idaho, Indiana, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, it appears not much has changed for notability since 2021. Still the same sourcing issues as back then. Oaktree b (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gscholar results are simply articles in the Journal, I can only find one citation in Jstor for this journal. Not seeing that it's been increasing in notability since the last relist. Oaktree b (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not my area but I think characterising the previous AfD as "no consensus" is a bit misleading; the closing summary by Sandstein was "The result was no consensus. Consensus to not delete, but no consensus whether to keep or to merge to Society for Ecological Restoration. ...". The debate centered around whether indexing in selective databases was necessary. Also, is CAB Abstracts not selective? I had thought they were to some extent at least. If I don't revisit this, then I'd suggest at very least merging to somewhere, though I agree picking a target might be the problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ETA. Via Newspaper.com search, there's a little coverage in The Spokesman-Review (13 Jun 2004, p. 71) relating to its fate after the close of University of Idaho Press. Also mention in Southtown Star (31 Oct 2004, Page 72) on it being included in a botanical garden collection. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Headbomb, I found the arguments in the previous AfD about not merging here quite convincing. --Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also can't merge into University of Idaho Press as that's been turned into a redirect (though I don't think that was the best of decisions). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Three years = more than enough time to address issues raised in the previous AfD, but the article's problems remain. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Headbomb. Three years is indeed more than enough, but redirects are cheap, and the history will be available in case the journal becomes independently notable. Owen× ☎ 17:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: 1/ consensus can change, 2/ WP:NOTINHERITED, and 3/ we're 3 years further down the road and there's still no independent sources or indexing. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Dream is making an inheritance argument (an essay concerning arguments to avoid during AfD). He is saying it's WP:COMMONSENSE (policy) due to the number of sources that cite the journal, and the journal's pedigree in the academic + government world. Also Espresso Addict gave some sources above, and I linked to a bunch that could be looked into more closely. All this combined makes me think it would be a mistake to delete. If the article is kept, I would make an effort to improve the article with these sources. I will not do so while the AfD is ongoing, because it's so late in the process and so many Merge/Delete votes already a WP:HEY would be very difficult to achieve, and I don't know what high-bar HEY standard people will demand to change their vote (and most people never change their vote regardless). -- GreenC 16:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources??? Those listed by our coffee drinking friend don't seem to meet GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Spokesman-Review (13 Jun 2004, p. 71), relating to the journal's fate after the close of University of Idaho Press, looks OK to me. The gross word count is low, but the coverage is significant enough, in terms of about the journal. The other source Southtown Star is not significant coverage. A general search of the WP:Wikipedia Library finds 1,683 results, if anyone wants to dig deeper. -- GreenC 18:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the second one isn't any use for the article, I just thought it showed holdings of the journal, which does speak somewhat to importance. The first does at least provide an iota of information. I suggested a possible merge above, but I'd be equally happy with keep, fwiw. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: trying for a consensus, although one doesn't appear likely. Prefer not to revisit in 2027
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: a single researcher with less than 2000 cites would not or only barely qualify for an article. For a journal that has been around as long as this one, 2000 cites frankly is rather pathetic. --Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But we are talking about native plant journals. Not comparing it to eg. Science. There is such a thing as relative size. Wikipedia has room for notable small journals, if they are important within their field. I'm not an expert on native plants journals but we can do some preliminary search engine checks and according to Randy Kyrn below, they found what appears to be evidence this journal has prominence. Your response was "not impressed", OK, well I don't know how to respond to that. Do you have evidence to suggest it is not a prominent native plants journal? -- GreenC 14:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cannot prove a negative. Once notability is questioned, it has to be shown that there is notability, not the other way around. The closest one can get to "prove" that a journal is not notable is to show that there are no sources meeting GNG and no selective indexing meeting NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not sure if this helps the consensus any - but I'm going to come down on the keep side. As per A.B., NPJ does appear to be a journal with a significant quantity of citations to meet WP:NJOURNALS and therefore deserving of an article. ResonantDistortion 12:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion here and at the 2021 deletion attempt discussion and the fact that the Journal is an important historical and academic source of literature on its topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Any evidence for your assertion that the journal "is an important historical and academic source of literature on its topic"? (Except your personal opinion, of course). --Randykitty (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three things: WP:NOTINHERITED (we regularly delete non-predatory journals from major publishers if they don't meet our notability requirements) and second, forgive me, but I'm not really impressed by the fact that Bing thinks that "Native Plants Journal" is a good match for a query "journals about native plants". And three: library holdings are notoriously unreliable on WorldCat and often completely out of date. Some libraries list journals, even if they don't carry them. So its very difficult to gage what are "significant holdings". --Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that WP:NOTINHERITED, too often used as "a given" in deletion discussions, is an essay. Essays have their place, but not as end-alls or final words. In this case I'm guessing that the inherited notability would be the University of Wisconsin Press which, as mentioned, is not a vanity publisher and, I'm guessing, picks and chooses wisely. The Wikipedia page on the Press mentions their publication of nine journals, Native Plants Journal is one of them (I know, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but commonsense seems a rule rather than an exception in this case). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2023 (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 Pasay#Geography. ✗plicit 03:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barangays of Pasay

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

Article has been tagged for references since 2019 and might be WP:NOTDIRECTORY concern as well. Alternatively, make a collapsible table at Pasay#Geography with this article's info. --Lenticel (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Missouri's congressional districts by HDI

List of Missouri's congressional districts by HDI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm frankly unsure why this exists; and there doesn't seem to be any significant discussion of ranking congressional districts in the state of Missouri in any sources anywhere. Fails WP:GNG as this is a topic that seems to have garnered no attention whatsoever. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Alabama Congressional Districts by HDI which this was attempted to be bundled into in 2020 and should have been deleted then. Hog Farm Talk 02:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating
List of Arizona's congressional districts by HDI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Reywas92Talk 03:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Surinamese

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

Does not appear to meet GNG. BEFORE pulled up no sources. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 02:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not a notable topic and there are no good merge candidates — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Description of the cartoons. Two relists, no one suggesting retention or providing further input. However this is a viable AtD given its origins. Star Mississippi 02:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons

AfDs for this article:
Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obviously a NOTINDISCRIMINATE vio Mach61 (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Lakes Estates, California

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

Ineligible for PROD due to previous AfD. This location seems to be a subdivision; only passing mentions in ads and legal notices were found. No secondary coverage at all. Without legal recognition this site fails WP:GEOLAND and without secondary coverage it fails WP:GNG. This is another of the many low-effort stubs, sourced only to GNIS (which does not establish notability), created by the user Carlossuarez46 during a brief mass-creation spree in 2009. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable. My search found nothing to establish notability. 2 government documents refer to Indian Lakes Estates as a "subdivision", confirming WeirdNAnnoyed's assessment: [106], [107]. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found a third that says the same. Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should have been deleted last time. Reywas92Talk 03:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GNIS record for this doesn't pass verification, and the only source for this is false. The record reads "Occidental College. Accessed from classic.oxy.edu on 15 December 2005". Noting that classic.oxy.edu just redirects to www.oxy.edu, if we go to http://classic.oxy.edu at the Wayback Machine (archived 2005-12-15) there is not a mention of "Indian Lakes Estates" there. I have brought this up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#GNIS regurgitators. We seem to have a bunch of things that someone put into the GNIS saying them to be from Occidental College that fail verification against the WWW site that they are purported to come from.

    Looking around, I find a commercial map from 1966 showing that this is the name of a small housing development which the map says is in Coarsegold, California, and that latter is the actual name of the place. Which agrees with where the Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino seems to think that it itself is, despite what was argued in the prior AFD discussion.

    Sadly, the prior AFD discussion also argued that this must be a distinct place because From Indian Lakes is named after it. But the source in that article itself says "in a small mountain community just outside Yosemite National Park", and doesn't actually support what our article says. Coarsegold, California is "a small mountain community just outside Yosemite National Park".

    The penultimate nail in the coffin is that a Fresno State College document from 1972 by R. R. Mead turns up in a search, listing this as a subdivision of "Coarsegold South". This is exactly the "just suburban neighborhood" mentioned in the prior AFD discussion.

    The final nail in the coffin is that the external hyperlink to Google in the prior AFD discussion turns up only a horse ranch in Nevada, an apartment block, and Pangong Tso (a lake in India!). Vague handwaves in the direction of Google are not citing sources.

    It's incredibly tedious cleaning up GNIS mess at this level, especially in the wake of vague handwave zero research AFD discussion.

    Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as additional sources verify this is a "real" unincorporated community near Coarsegold of 485 homes (2000 Fresno Bee article says 485; 2016 article says "about 500"). Newspapers.com finds coverage over the years about the Indian Lakes Estates water distribution system and concerns about sharing water and Road 417 with the Chukchansi casino. Pinging Uncle G for giving up too easily. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the work you put into finding those news articles. At least now the article says something. Still, those references are just trivial news reports on mundane community matters that happen in every settlement of any size: Someone is worried about traffic. Not everyone wants the new business in town. None of it really describes the community in any meaningful sense. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs but I think WP:NOTNEWS applies here.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Trivial to you, perhaps, but significant enough to merit dedicated coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time, and I would hardly call development of a casino next door as WP:ROUTINE. Also WP:NOTNEWS applies to current events and does not apply here. Maybe you've been staring at these @Carlossuarez46 stubs too much – happens to the best of us. I suggest slowing down and/or getting more cross-training in other parts of Wikipedia. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The development of a casino next door is most definately routine coverage. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Going to make it noted that this is not its own unincorporated community, but rather a neighborhood fully-within the Coarsegold CDP. Don't know if that makes it any less notable or not, but maybe the article for it could somehow be merged into the Coarsegold article, if so. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As of 2003, Indian Lakes Estates was an unincorporated community per Fresno Bee. When did it become part of Coarsegold CDP? Cielquiparle (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    According to this census map, Indian Lakes Estates does NOT appear to be part of Coarsegold CDP (14288), but rather, lying outside of it. (At first I thought it was considered part of T2775 or Picayune RNIA T2775 (and maybe it is)...but this map has all the streets of Indian Lakes Estates lying slightly outside of that, too (where all the letters are). @Uncle G Cielquiparle (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the coverage found and expansion work by Cielquiparle. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
●Delete- I am going to have to agree with WeirdNAnnoyed, the coverage found is either non-sigcov, or just news. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How many towns and community articles on Wikipedia have information about their relations with local Native American tribes? Not many. It's a fairly unique story. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting rather than closing this as No consensus (yet). I do want to applaud editor participating in these location/place discussions whatever your stance is, you do much more research into the article subject than I see in most AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge to Coarsegold, California. I'm going to approach this from a ruthlessly logical perspective. Either this is what we colloquially know as a "subdivision" and it's part of another legally recognized sub-county-level place, such as Coarsegold and can be merged in part; or the term "subdivision" is being used by sources in a different way (perhaps as a stand-in for "administrative subdivision" or "political subdivision"?), and this is a legally recognized unincorporated community and should be kept by WP:POPULATED. —siroχo 18:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Education and Leadership Initiative

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

Source 2 is dead and source 3 doesn't even mention this organization. No coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jim Savage. If you disagree with this Redirect target, please have a discussion on the talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fresno Crossing, California

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

Ineligible for PROD because it was proposed for deletion once before, closed as "keep". Site is not a recognized populated place (let alone "unincorporated community"); it's just a river crossing. No improvements to article since previous AfD. Without meaningful secondary coverage it fails WP:GNG, and without evidence this was a populated place it fails WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the external bare URLs from the prior AFD discussion are either paywalled or "no such page" for me. So I read the Fresno history books instead.

    It's not an "unincorporated community". It was the site of the James D. Savage Trading Post, and near to the site of (until the area was flooded in 1971) the Savage Monument. There's very little to say about this that isn't really about the Savage Trading Post. There are perhaps a couple of sentences in some 19th century histories of Fresno that describe ownership the year after Savage died. But pretty much all else is histories of Savage.

    I'm not sure whether we should have this point to Jim Savage or the Savage Trading Post article, or refactor it into Savage Monument. We do seem to have much of this actually in Jim Savage already; the problem with Savage Trading Post is that it doesn't cover that (per the Rensch+Rensch+Hoover history) he actually had four trading posts, and the one at Fresno Crossing was his fourth and last; and the Savage Monument is only near to where the fourth trading post was. The mining was not here, but at Coarse Gold Gulch in the history books. And the only "camp" here in the history books was but one of several forestry labour camps "for unemployed transients" in the 1930s.

    Uncle G (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Stockton–Los Angeles Road#The route of the Stockton–Los Angeles Road. I suspect this location's historical importance is solely as a river ford on the north-south California wagon route from Fort Yuma near Mexico to Benicia on San Francisco Bay. It's mentioned briefly in the United States War Department's 1859 guidebook to overland travel, The Prairie Traveler by Captain Randolph Barnes Marcy. Later, starting in 1912, "Fresno Crossing" doesn't show up as a place name on topographic maps until 1962. There are never more than several buildings shown at this place. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Due to an edit conflict, I only saw Uncle G's comments after I posted my comment above. I think a redirect to one of the Savage-related articles would be better than a redirect to the old overland route. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would be fine with a redirect to one of the Savage-related articles Uncle G mentioned, as long as the article in question mentions Fresno Crossing and its relevance to Savage and his business interests. I'm not opposed to keeping articles/redirects on minor locations; I'm opposed to information-less stubs created not to preserve history but because GNIS had an entry with this name, which is clearly what happened here. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. The proposals to merge or redirect to Titles in medieval Wales cannot be currently implemented, as that article does not currently exist (although a draft does). I recommend restarting a merger or redirection discussion on the talk page once the target article exists and is stable. Sandstein 14:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King of Wales

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

There is really only one contender for the title of King of Wales and that is Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, although he was not called King of Wales in his lifetime. There are sources that refer to him thus. For instance [108]. So this page makes a subject where none exists. The information about Gruffydd ap Llywelyn is on his page and should be there. This page could redirect there as this was the only real contender for the title. Other UK home nations do not have pages describing the concept of a king of the nation, despite more clearly having kings (England and Scotland particularly). There is no encyclopaedic subject of King of Wales outside of Gruffyd ap Llywelyn. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify / KEEP. After a protracted debate for over 2 months, there has been no compromise as to the full potential of the article. The previous edition gave detailed information about the monarchs named in Brut y Tywysogion in list form. An adapted article using primary sources has been discussed (Talk:King of Wales#Missing King of Wales claimants) to create a prose paragraph style work listing Kings named rulers of Wales from the middle ages, however, the issue of mythology has been raised in regard of the listing of individuals bringing WP:RS into contention. I suggest in keeping a rewrite the article and using the existing listing of Gruffudd ap Llywelyn but adding a more detailed segment about the rulers prior to and after the one individual listed from a potential dozen Kings of Wales. You just have to look at the fellow Celtic nations' lists: List of legendary rulers of Cornwall, List of High Kings of Ireland and Legendary kings of Scotland to better understand the article's potential. Cltjames (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC) I think @Richard Keatinge: took the right initiative. As in, the bulk of the work about the King of Wales should be kept, but the title will be better explained with reference to the other medieval titles, e.g. Rex, Brenin, Princeps. Cltjames (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list articles are not comparable to what we have here, and we have the comparable article in List of rulers in Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but this should be a disambiguation page. I don't think the argument about the other UK home nations makes sense, since we do have redirects with obvious targets for those. See King of England and King of Scotland. For this article we have a real problem since someone searching for "king of wales" probably isn't looking for the article on Gruffydd ap Llywelyn. A dab page with some (extremely minimal) explanations makes sense here. You'd probably want Prince of Wales linked in a hatnote. I don't think draftifying makes sense - if there hasn't been consensus in two months on the talk page, why would it transpire over six months of draftification? -- asilvering (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think creation of a DAB would be a sensible outcome. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "King of Wales title" or similar - focused on the historical use of the title rather than territorial rule of all Wales. Titus Gold (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cltjames if you want to create a page of fictional kings e.g Legendary Kings of Wales / Fictional Kings of Wales, that's a separate matter I think. This page should remain historical. Titus Gold (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "King of Wales title" or similar, since that is what the article is about. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There has never really been a King of Wales title though. Gruffydd ap Llywelyn did not use it of himself. After him, Owain Gwynedd, who did not rule the whole polity, once described himself as "king of the Waleses" in a letter to the French king, but he did not do that consistently, and the letter was very much occasioned. It was not a title bestowed on him. Anyone looking to learn about "King of Wales" either wants to know about the princes or else about Gruffydd ap Llywelyn. There never was a title of King of Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not move. An article about a title can be at that title. Compare King of Kings or King of the Goths. The article should be about the title. The article currently says nothing about Orderic's reference to a rex Guallorum or to Rhys as rex Walensium. I found these in a few minutes of googling. I just think it needs a lot of work, but deletion can't accomplish that. Srnec (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Orderic refers, it is presumed, retrospectively to Gruffudd ap Cynan. Rhys ap Gruffydd is on the page as it stands, called head of Wales on his death. Where are you finding the reference to rex Walensium? If the Robert of Torigny primary source collated in Monumenta Germaniae Historica we should note that this is not a title Rhys took for himself. He twice styled himself prince of the Welsh, and the reasons for that are discussed by, e.g. Turvey (2002) as being in direct opposition to the use of king. Turvey cites chronicler usage that retained "rex" but also the styling of Welsh rulers as "regulus", a use of the Latin diminuative in mockery of the "little kings". His theory, then is that the Welsh thus chose to style their rulers as princes. He says:

This accords well with the view that Rhys and his fellow rulers, at the behest of Henry II, set aside all pretensions to regal status in return for confirmation of their landholdings. It seems that during the twelfth century the native chroniclers were tending increasingly to acclaim only their greatest rulers brenin or rex and then only as an epithet of greatness to be dispensed at death as a mark of respect and for past deeds should they warrant titular distinction. By the thirteenth century this practice had ceased completely

  • Turvey, R. (2002) The Welsh Princes: The Native Rulers of Wales 1063-1283 Routledge.
Thus neither of these ruled the polity, and retrospective claims do not speak to a title. Also, where is the evidence in sources that (unlike King of Kings or King of the Goths) the term "King of Wales" has any notability apart from reference to Gruffydd ap Llywelyn? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What "polity"? There was no kingdom of Wales. But the title "King of Wales" existed nevertheless, both arrogated and attributed. How it was used, by and of whom, is a question best answered by this article. Rulership in medieval Wales would be a broader but equally valid topic. This article could be expanded and moved, but I see no good reason to nix it. There are enough sources that discuss the title "king of Wales/Waleses/the Welsh". For example, the paper "From Rex Wallie to Princeps Wallie" in The Medieval State: Essays Presented to James Campbell or "Gruffudd ap Cynan and the Medieval Welsh Polity" in Gruffudd ap Cynan: A Collaborative Biography. Srnec (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the lack of kingdom of Wales is the point. The title "King of Wales" did not exist in any unambiguous and meaningful way, because there was no kingdom of Wales, except arguably under one man for a brief period from 1057-1063. But the confusion of that period with other singular and occasioned descriptions of people who were not kings of any such kingdom, makes this article unworkable asis. If there was a king of Wales, it was Gruffudd. But you suggest we could used Rulership in medieval Wales. DeCausa, on the article talk page yesterday, suggested Titles of Welsh rulers. You are both quite right. A better article is possible in which we dispense with the attempts merely to list names of people that have at some point been called something, as though one thing is equivalent to another. The better article answers the question, and it is a very good question, "why did Wales have princes?" It would look at the development of the concept of Wales and the usage of a range of terms, and the influence of England in that development. (See also DeCausa's message on talk [109]). If we want to move this article and make it the basis of that, I do not mind. We just need to firm up the move target. I tend to think it is actually a different article, but I can see that starting from a base may be quicker than starting from scratch. This suggestion also has the very important policy argument behind it: we have good secondary sources that demonstrate notability for this subject. You provide some, and we have Turvey above and plenty more. This is not the case for an article on the King of Wales. No sources have been presented that demonstrate that this page, as it is, is notable. The sources are guiding us: Titles of Welsh rulers or Rulership in medieval Wales would be the encyclopaedic article here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited such sources. Deleting this article does not get us closer to an ideal article, but further. I think it is a completely mistaken assumption that "King of Wales" must mean what you take it to mean rather than whatever the primary sources that use it took it to mean. Srnec (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to King of Wales (title) as suggested above, to clarify that this is about the term/title, not specific historical rulers, with a top link to Gruffydd ap Llywelyn. Cortador (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with no strong views on the naming. If you follow the link to Wales in this article, it takes you to Wales in the Middle Ages, where the lead is very short:

    "Wales in the Middle Ages covers the history of the country that is now called Wales, from the departure of the Romans in the early fifth century to the annexation of Wales into the Kingdom of England in the early sixteenth century. This period of about 1,000 years saw the development of regional Welsh kingdoms, Celtic conflict with the Anglo-Saxons, reducing Celtic territories, and conflict between the Welsh and the Anglo-Normans from the 11th century."

    Since this text explicitly refers to the kingdom of England and Welsh kingdoms, it's reasonable for a reader not well-versed in the history of the UK or Wales to want to know about the concept of kingship in Wales, a constituent country of the United Kingdom with a particularly rich history, and to understand if there has been a "King of Wales", and if so, who he might have been. This article is a useful general discussion of the concept, and an informative read. Elemimele (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with @Sirfurboy. The only rulers significantly associated with the title are Gruffydd ap Llywelyn and Owain Gwynedd, and in each case their articles are the most appropriate place to cover this. The use of the title could also be covered at Prince of Wales. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've never heard or read of Wales ever being a kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete per Sirfurboy and others. Separately, I support De Causa's (and, I think, Elemimele's) idea of a page on mediaeval Welsh titles, in which the information currently presented here might, subject to consensus, be very briefly mentioned. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still find no encyclopedic use for a page that retrojects later concepts and claims onto un-systematized historical usage. Such an approach is suitable only for fringe websites and the like. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it is easier to have a page to explain the concept, while simply stating that only Gruffydd ap Llywelyn had the title symbolically from modern historians like Davies. When a page refer to other titles, it becomes very confusing and we the reader don't even bother to click on it, as it more work for our brain. From the start, the page states that there was no kingdom and no political unity and was used only on a handful of occasions. Why not simply including in the current page the titles of King of the Welsh, Head of all Wales, etc and explain how these titles were used by Welsh rulers and explain why they were different, and maybe explain also why Wales had only princes.Academia45 (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an encyclopedic topic in its own right, so redirect to Titles in medieval Wales. Llwyld (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, I think that keep is in favour, but like is being spoken about, King of Wales is not an encyclopedia topic because Wales was never officially a Kingdom. And that the titles range greatly between acknowledged Rex titular owners and Gruffudd ap Llywelyn who soley conquered Wales by warfare. Therefore, I believe the concept of creating a redirect and simply creating sub paragraphs, e.g. Rex Wallie (Brenin) King of Wales etc. would be a better idea with a sort of king list showing the title holders that @Titus Gold: produced in Talk:King of Wales. Are we on board to simply move the text from one article to another, and create a redirect. Again, to reiterate, I'm thinking King of Wales simple article is not enough bulk and could be better explained with references to other titles. Cltjames (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Titles in medieval Wales per above. DankJae 23:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    edit: article since been deleted, Keep per above instead. DankJae 16:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been draftified, now more appropriately at Draft:Titles in medieval Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Keatinge (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you can't redirect to a draft, and no guarantee that the article would leave draft, so keep over a soft deletion. A merger could be discussed at a later time. DankJae 21:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, I'm seeing a big divide and no consensus. We have Delete, Keep, Move and Redirect advocates all in about the same numbers and so far, the discussion has focused on the position of Wales as an entity, not rooted in any poicy guideiines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Titles in medieval Wales, per above. The current title is imprecise and unencyclopedic, and the topic itself + any disambiguation required can be covered in the redirect target page, which gives context to the title itself. sawyer / talk 07:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Liz - I am not sure that the equal numbers is quite right. I (delete) and Academia45 (keep) both stated we were content with a redirect to Titles in medieval Wales - a target that emerged during the discussion. Isn't there an emerging consensus for that? (6 !votes if you count me and Academia45) [edit conflict, now 7]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest, when I review these AFDs, I don't do a head count. I read all of the comments, the comments to the comments, the relevant policy pages, etc. and offer my impression of the totality of the discussion. Most admins don't include any remarks when they relist a discussion (and often don't say anything when they close the discussion, either) but I like to give a brief statement on where I think the discussion stands. But it's not uncommon for discussions to be closed before a relisting period ends, in fact, looking over relisted discussions is how I happened to see your comment. I haven't had any objections (so far) to my relisting comments but if they are seen as unhelpful, I might just let them be and not insert my point-of-view on the state of the debate. Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was not suggesting the relisting comments are unhelpful. Indeed, when you ask editors to focus on, e.g., the appropriate redirect target, or you focus on where the lack of consensus lies (e.g. between deletion or merge) the comments are very helpful. You asked for editors familiar with GEOLAND to comment once which was also very helpful. I was merely pointing out that in this comment, you say about the same numbers. Thus my comment. In any case the relist has precipitated A.D.Hope's comments, which are useful to the discussion, inasmuch as regardless of outcome, they indicate how discussion should proceed on Titles in medieval Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If all these titles aren't notable enough, then a fortiori just one of them can't be. Would you agree to make the redirect from this article, pending possible consensus on further redirection to the articles that you mention? Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't agree; consensus should be gained before the redirect is created. I also disagree on notability, as one title being notable doesn't mean another is. 'Prince of Wales' is notable enough for an article, for example, but 'prince of Gwynedd' is covered by Kingdom of Gwynedd. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As well as prince of Wales as an article, there is clearly a notable topic on the Welsh princes. E.g. (Turvey, 2002) (quoted above). Note that this is a different, wider topic, looking at the princes of the various kingdoms. However the term prince developed from earlier usages of Brenin, Rhi, Rex. Hywel Dda was a king of Deheubarth, and also an important part of the story owing to the codifying of law. Davies (1994), for instance, covers that and is by no means alone in doing so. A reading of Turvey, or Davies (2001) (that is RR Davies, not J Davies) would, for instance, demonstrate that an article on a development of titles in medieval Wales is notable and distinct from a prince of Wales article (which is properly about that specific title). One could argue over the naming (always!) but I believe such an article is clearly notable based on not just these sources, but many more. Indeed, One thing that we should do is seek to restrict it so that we don't shoehorn in the likes of (Carr, 2017). But this also demonstrates that the study of the development of titles is an academic one and notable.
You also suggest the history of Wales articles as potential targets. Those articles are on my todo list (in the "one day" category) because they are a mess owing to the indiscriminate copy/paste of material from one to another so they are highly duplicated. The idea of them is that they drill down in detail so that the various middle ages articles pick out detail from the more general history of Wales article. At the moment they don't. They are, as I say, full of copy/pastes. Assuming they were fixed, they would be a poor target for this material. The individual articles would be too focussed on their target periods, so the discussion would need to be in the general History of Wales. But what is envisaged here is too detailed for the general history, so this new article would sit in the hierarchy as detail pointed to by the parent history article. Indeed, as topical history, it would sit better than divvying up the history along (sometimes arbitrary) dates.
The one thing that does not fit anywhere in that hierarchy, of course, is a "king of Wales" article - for all the reasons above. That would be ahistorical.
  • Carr A.D. (2017) The Gentry of North Wales in the Later Middle Ages. Cardiff: University of Wales.
  • Davies, J. (1994) A History of Wales. London: Penguin.
  • Davies, R.R. (2001) Age of Conquest Wales 1063-1415. Oxford:OUP.
  • Turvey, R. (2002) The Welsh Princes: The Native Rulers of Wales 1063-1283 Routledge.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For now I'm going to stand by my original suggestion of merging the relevant parts of this article with Gruffudd ap Llywelyn and Owain Gwynedd and deleting the remainder. It solves the immediate issue of this article's topic not being encyclopaedic. I'm not convinced that Turvey, Davies, and Davies prove the notability of medieval Welsh titles as a distinct topic; having had a look through each they mention titles as part of wider discussions of Welsh leadership, and it would be sensible for us to adopt the same approach.
There's clearly a wider issue with the group of articles on Welsh history being badly organised, as you note, but it's beyond the scope of this deletion discussion to address. My preference would be to perform the merger/deletion here and then open a new discussion at WP:WALES about the general structure and content of the Welsh history articles. That would also be a better place to discuss a potential 'medieval Welsh leadership (and titles)' article. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good points here, thanks. I have followed A.D.Hope's suggestion and merged the relevant bits of this article into Gruffudd ap Llywelyn and Owain Gwynedd, and I would support redirecting this article to Gruffudd ap Llywelyn. For further discussion elsewhere I suggest improvements to Titles in medieval Wales per Sirfurboy above, and I also support reorganization of the articles on Welsh history per A.D.Hope. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not responding sooner, Richard. I appreciate the work you've put in to take action on the suggestions here and see how they work in practice, as that's often the hardest part! Given 'Titles in medieval Wales' is now a draft I would suggest opening any discussions at WP:WALES or similar, just because it's a more visible space. All the best A.D.Hope (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete, whichever expunges this from the project most easierly. It is an ahistorical concept; it was almost never used, and was never considered representative of Wales the political entity. I'm sure either Geraldus or the 1533 Act would have jumped on it had it ever been anything close to recognisable. ——Serial 14:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "King of Wales", "King of the Waleses", "King of the Welsh"—all titles you can find in Latin in contemporary sources. What is ahistorical about it? I think a lot of modern readers are reading a "concept" into it that just isn't there. Srnec (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove somehow - The Latin rex is occasionally used for Welsh princes, but I do not think that justifies having this article. My preference would be redirecting or merging to an article on the medieval princes of Wales, since the title normally used in English is prince. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_November_30&oldid=1187654000"