Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 31: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eswaran Thangavel}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Yeranosyan}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Yeranosyan}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eni gas e luce}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eni gas e luce}}

Revision as of 14:54, 31 August 2022

< August 30 September 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 speedy keep. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eswaran Thangavel

Eswaran Thangavel (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)

Unable to locate WP:THREE in the article. Fails GNG DavidEfraim (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 05:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am trying to understand the terms used as I am new to contributing text content (Most of my contributions are photos and other community activities). From what I understand it looks like the sources referred are not good enough ?
I have used the Cinematographer's website, news about awards his movies has won etc to come up with the article. I also have a news content which is in south Indian language Kannada. (I will try to share it). Further some of his movies has wiki entries and I have referred the same. In general I agree that my submission lacks English articles to support them. Bobinson (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have found one more reference. Bobinson (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Yeranosyan

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK#4 as the nominator was a sockpuppet of a blocked user and all non-keep participants retracted their votes when they found out. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eni gas e luce

Eni gas e luce (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)

Unable to find significant coverage on the company that meets WP:NCORP. Article does not meet the guidelines for companies DavidEfraim (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 05:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. DavidEfraim (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important electricity company of the Eni group. Probably the Italian company that supplies the largest number of electricity users to the population. --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with Eni as an alternative to deletion. BilletsMauves€500 09:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, see it:Eni Plenitude (the Italian version of this article), is a different company. New. --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bad faith nomination by sock account. BilletsMauves€500 15:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge Subsidiary doesn't warrant a standalone article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nomination by sockpuppet account. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to De-escalation#Military tactics. Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Off ramp (diplomacy)

Off ramp (diplomacy) (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 concept that has only passing mentions in any of the listed sources. This alone is not enough for WP:GNG. I would also support merging this into exit strategy as it is nothing more than a special case of this broad concept. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add - I still think exit strategy is a far better target. An 'off ramp' is an exit strategy offered by one party to the other. I think deescalation is far broader, and it feels like we are shoe-horning this if we redirect. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 17:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete to exit strategy per nominator and user above. Seems to make the most sense. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 13:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge and Redirect to De-escalation#Military tactics as per Bakkster Man- Exit strategy refers to a plan derived by a state to extricate themselves from a situation, while off-ramp is more about one state offering another state a way to deescalate or otherwise disengage from a situation, whether by discretely offering some concession or positioning so as to allow the other state or leader a way to save face. One cannot say that the offramp is a special case of an exit strategy, because there is a fundamentally different dynamic at play. I do think the term is notable in itself, because although none of the articles using it go into depth analyzing the term itself, it has a lot of circulation in academic international relations literature; for example see here. It's something that is more appropriate for an encyclopedia than a dictionary, because the concept also has a history and applications in multiple fields, including negotiation and mediation, as mentioned in this NYT piece. Chagropango (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to De-escalation#Military tactics. As per Chagropango this is a specific tactic to de-escalate a conflict, specifically by offering an adversary an alternate path to escalation, rather than an exit strategy which is one party's self-motivated withdrawl. Not sure there's enough interest in expanding the topic beyond a dictionary definition (such as above suggestion to expand on past examples of de-escalation described as off-ramps; including Israel-Palestine, North Korea, Iran, et al), but at least the merge would put the term into the right article. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am totally happy with a Merge to De-escalation#Military tactics. Did not consider that possibility but it makes sense. I've already migrated some of the content [1], but happy with whatever everyone thinks is best upon closure of this. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Exit strategy, per El cid., Chagropango, and Bakkster Man. I agree that it is a more precise target. Sal2100 (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: @Shibbolethink: Due to an error I have corrected in Special:Diff/1107260123, Twinkle did not actually list the nomination at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science. The nomination has now been listed there. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this is a clear merge situation. No WP:SIGCOV for this as a separate topic and it's basically a synonym for exit strategy in a diplomatic context. Jontesta (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We've got 2 different Merge targets proposed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 14:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. However, if someone wants this to actively work on in draft, happy to provide Star Mississippi 02:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Bellmare Hiratsuka season

1999 Bellmare Hiratsuka season (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 the general notability guideline. google books results are just passing mentions and fail the requirements of significant coverage. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 13:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "[Ｊリーグ百年物語]変革と混乱の1999年が始まった――湘南ベルマーレ（98）（川端康生） - 個人". Yahoo!ニュース (in Japanese). Retrieved 2022-08-25.
Jumpytoo Talk 08:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 14:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify - deletion is not cleanup but... there is no prose content to this article whatsoever. It's just a bunch of tables. I agree with User:Jumpytoo that this passes WP:NSEASONS and also note that any sources are unlikely to be in English but that only makes them harder for English-speakers to find, not non-existent. I think a Japanese-speaker could probably find sources and make something of this but in its current state it shouldn't be in mainspace. GoldenRing (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per @Jumpytoo:. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. SWinxy (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - violates NOTDATABASE, a Wikipedia policy Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Discussion about a re-scope/move/merge can continue editorially, if desired. It's clear that there isn't going to be a consensus to delete the material, therefore this does not require another relist, which I'm not sure would bring about further consensus anyway given the scope questions. Star Mississippi 01:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northern New Jersey Council

Northern New Jersey Council (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 is entirely sourced to BSA promotional material. My own searching fails to find any sources that meet WP:SIRS. A small portion of this material (say, a list of the camps with 1-2 sentences about each) could be merged into Scouting in New Jersey with a redirect left behind. The vast majority is low-level trivia, as noted in January. Garden State Council in the parent article is a good example of what makes sense. Much of it ("By drawing on the strengths of each of these individual councils and merging them together, the Northern New Jersey Council has committed itself to offering the finest Scouting programs, increasing membership and providing strong, supportive leadership") is WP:G11 material.

I propose this with some sadness, having been a member of Troop 350 when I was a kid, and enjoyed many a camping trip to Alipine, NoBe, and Floodwood, where I earned my 50 miler award. But none of that means this meets WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Scouting and New Jersey. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @RoySmith: Do I understand that you are proposing to Redirect and merge the content of the page to Scouting in New Jersey? --evrik (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps AfD was the wrong forum, but yes, that's essentially what I'm proposing. But, not everything, not even half as you suggest below. The vast majority of this is trivia and needs to be dropped. This has been tagged for improvements of various kinds for years, so I don't have much optimism that anybody's going to come forth and find better sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Admittedly, about half of what's here should be cut out. However, the remaining information is notable. I would suggest that someone take the time to thoroughly edit this work. I'm sure that we can find sources to substantiate most of what's here. Redirect this to Scouting in New Jersey. If someone want to take the time to bring it up to snuff, we can remove the redirect. --evrik (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and procedural close I think the proposer came to the wrong place. All the the discussion were about improvements needed in the article, not about valid reasons for deletion of the article. The topic would clearly meet GNG. BTW, I think "promotional" is too strong of a term......"self descriptive" would be a better one. I may try a few tweaks. North8000 (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made some tweaksNorth8000 (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am always amused when someone spends more time trying to get an article deleted than contributing to improve the work. --evrik (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the independent sources which support this meeting GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are now five:
Slocum, John W. (1963-04-25). "JERSEY ACQUIRES BOY SCOUTS' CAMP|Buys 300 Acres at Alpine for Public Park Under Green Acres Plan Tract West of 9W". New York Times.
Kalleser, Steven W. Jacek P. Siry; Pete Bettinger; Krista Merry; Donald L. Grebner; Kevin Boston; Chris Cieszewski (eds.). Camp No-Be-Bo-Sco. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Gormly, Kellie B. (2021-10-26). "The 1980 Slasher Movie 'Friday the 13th' Was Filmed at This Boy Scout Camp in New Jersey". Smithsonian Mag.
Zusman, Albert B. (Summer 1999). Boy Scout Camps along the Delaware River (PDF). Spanning the Gap. Vol. 21. Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
Kean, Thomas H. (1985). Remarks of Governor Thomas H. Kean, Hudson-Hamilton Council of Boy Scouts of America, Meadowlands, Friday, May 3, 1985.

--evrik (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are WP:SIGCOV of the subject
  • Slocum is coverage of a real estate sale 60 years ago by a predecessor entity, which doesn't say anything about the council beyond the terms of the land sale.
  • Kalleser is extensive coverage of the history of NoBeBoSco, but only makes passing mentions of the North Bergen Council as related to the camp.
  • Gormly covers the slasher movie made at NoBeBoSco, but again, just a passing mention of Northern New Jersey Council as the owner of the camp.
  • Zusman talks about Boy Scout camps in general, with a short section about NoBeBoSco as part of the list. I don't see anything that even mentions the council.
  • Kean is a political speech by the state governor. I can't find the full text, but from the abstract linked to on Google Books, it doesn't sound very significant to me. If you have a source for the full text, I'd be happy to look at it in more detail.
WP:GNG requires that coverage for organizations Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. These sources fall well short of that.
-- RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know that those things you mentioned above refer to the camps, etc. which are all parts of the council? --evrik (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do know that. I also know that notability is not inherited. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED? Which passages apply here? --evrik (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources are talking about the council. They are (mostly) talking about camps that the council owns. But, the key point is that there is no significant coverage of the council. WP:SIGCOV requires that the sources addresses the topic directly and in detail. How do any of these sources address the Northern New Jersey Council directly and in detail? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The camps are the primary focus of the council. You can't separate one from the other. --evrik (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Evrik I respectfully disagree. It could be possible to have an article about Camp No-Be-Bo-Sco (if it meets the notability requirements) with or without having an article about the council. GoingBatty (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: As you may remember, both Camp NoBeBoSco and Camp No-Be-Bos-Co have existed in the past, and were merged with this article. Yes, a camp article could exist without an article on the council. However, I am not advocating on articles about the camps. If you look below, there are at least four articles about the council, and then there are those tha cover the camp. --evrik (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found three sources that describes the council:

--evrik (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 14:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re: Evrik's comment about a source's reliability; I think that discussion has no bearing on deletion discussion outcomes, as being self-published has always disqualified a source from being able to help satisfy GNG. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO clearly meets GNG. There is one argument against that which is really unfounded. Which is saying to coverage about things which are a part of the council is not coverage of the council. By definition, the council consists of all of it's parts. Saying to exclude coverage of the things that it consists of is not correct. North8000 (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please reassess after changes to the article after AFD nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. After three weeks, only the nominator supports deletion. Whether this should remain as a separate article or be merged elsewhere isn't a discussion for AfD. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Backtaxi

Backtaxi (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)

While the bit about how this relates to the Tenerife disaster may be of interest, by and large this article doesn't appear to satisfy WP:NOTDICTIONARY. DonIago (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - actually: meh. I'd rather see this incorporated into an article on aviation, but I don't know enough to know where it fits. This is a documented procedure, but there are undoubtedly dozens or hundreds of others. yep, meh. Lamona (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider a possible Merge to Appendix:Glossary of aviation, aerospace, and aeronautics. Turns out that this is a Wiktionary page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to World Athletics Half Marathon Championships with the history preserved under the redirect as there is no reason not to. Star Mississippi 01:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 World Athletics Half Marathon Championships

2022 World Athletics Half Marathon Championships (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)

Only information is that event was cancelled, so will be a permanent stub article. Doesn't pass WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and China. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd say merge to World Athletics Half Marathon Championships but all the information in the article is already there. GoldenRing (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Goldenring & nom. WaggersTALK 15:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect rather than delete. i do not have a specific preference regarding whether the article should be kept or not, but i think it would be better to convert it into a redirect rather than simply delete it. whenever similar annual events have been cancelled due to the pandemic and there was not already an article on that year's event, i have noticed that a common practice is to create a redirect to the main event article and include the redirect in the appropriate category of events cancelled due to the pandemic, as seen here.
    although i think that, at this point, i am the editor who has contributed most to the prose that has remained, i am not particularly attached to the prose, and most of the information is already in the main event article anyway. (as an aside, i think this subject actually does pass wp:gng, but i do not think it passing wp:gng should be dispositive, as much of the discussion is about plans for an event that never happened.) however, at the time i updated the article to reflect the event's cancellation, i did not think that it would be appropriate for me to unilaterally delete the article or convert it into a redirect, as i believe there is precedent for keeping such stubs, as seen with 2020 Evian Championship, 2020 IHF Super Globe, and 2020 European Athletics Championships. (the history for the last one may be interesting, as it shows two attempts at converting it into a redirect that were reverted.)
    i assume that, whatever the outcome of this discussion is, the same should probably similarly apply to other comparable stubs. would it be appropriate to convert this into a nomination for multiple articles? i admittedly do not spend much time at afd, so i am unfamiliar with the procedures here. also, the number of articles in the Sports events cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic category seems daunting, and articles such as The Boat Race 2020, a featured article, should probably be weeded out of such a nomination. however, it would be nice to get some guidance regarding how to proceed with such stubs going forward. dying (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC) [note: hilariously, two of the stubs i listed above have since been turned into redirects, almost certainly due to my pointing them out. in any case, the existence of many other such stubs, at the time i edited the article currently under discussion, is why i had not unilaterally turned this article into a redirect, so the point still stands. also, the fact that they were converted into redirects rather than nominated for deletion supports my overall argument. dying (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)][reply]
  • Redirect is fine. As for the other articles listed, there are loads of redirects in that category, and the existence of other permanent stubs isn't a reason to keep this- it's a reason to get rid of them too, in my opinion. But there are so many cancelled sports events that everything cannot be looked at immediately. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • oh, i agree that "the existence of other permanent stubs isn't a reason to keep this", as per wp:ose. however, i disagree that "it's a reason to get rid of them too", also as per wp:ose. in addition, i do not think that everything needs to be looked at immediately, and i apologize if that appeared to be what i was proposing. however, i think there is merit in including perhaps one or two permanent stubs from each sport in an afd nomination of multiple articles to obtain a decent consensus regarding what action (if any) should be taken with such stubs going forward, so that no additional editor time is wasted with future cancellation updates if these stubs will end up being merged, redirected, or deleted anyway. i had been thinking of making such a nomination myself, but quickly realized that having my first afd nomination be a complex nomination of multiple articles does not seem like a good idea. dying (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider a redirect to World Athletics Half Marathon Championships.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 16:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal

AfDs for this article:
Editorial Board at The Wall Street 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)

The article is simply a copy of the Wall Street Journal article, and it is unnecessary for the same reason no other newspaper's editorial board has its own article; not significantly separated from the newspaper article itself. There is not a need for a separate article, because it is simply one part of the WSJ as a whole. Bill Williams 13:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep nominator's rationale doesn't appear accurate, the editorial board of the WSJ is quite notable in its own right. Andre🚐 14:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is definitely not simply a copy as the nominator suggests. It appears to definitely be worthy of its own article, and the Wall Street Journal article already refers to this article for more details on the editorial board. So keeping this appears to be the right course of action CrazyPredictor (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge and delete - I agree with the nominator; there's some good information here, but it could easily be added (or, in some cases, re-added) to the main The Wall Street Journal page. The Wall Street Journal article doesn't need splitting up - it's 112 KB right now, which is admittedly long, but still only about half the length of The New York Times article. Adding another few paragraphs for this additional content won't break anything. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this isn't a discussion about whether or not WSJ should be split, it already has been. You need to make an argument about why this page doesn't meet GNG etc, its fundamentally a different discussion once the bold edit has been made to create the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make sense - either this should be one or two articles, and the merits of the argument don't change depending on whether it's currently one or two articles. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They actually are different standards, which is presumably why you're arguing "Delete" rather than "Merge" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's true that what I'm arguing for is really a merge. (Or re-merge.) But I don't think there's any point in keeping this page in place once the merge is done. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a regular merge, not a deletion. Presumably you would want Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal to redirect to Wall Street Journal? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it should be deleted - that's what I meant with my previous comment. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you want a merge rather than a merge and redirect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fine - I changed my recommendation to "Merge and delete". Korny O'Near (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is nearly identical to the Editorial Board section of the Wall Street Journal article, and arguing otherwise ignores the fact that it was created by copying and pasting that section into this article. Every other editorial board that is as notable as the WSJ does not have their own articles. The WSJ editorial board is not somehow more notable than every other one, and it does not need its own article because it is not notable independently from the WSJ itself. This article receives almost no views in comparison to the main article, and is not needed in its own right. Bill Williams 17:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be mistaken, it was partially created by copying and pasting but that is not the extent of the issue... Only half of the info in this article can be found at the WSJ main page, if you really think they're nearly identical I advise you take another look. The WSJ editorial board does appear to get more coverage than any other one, that makes it more notable. We base notability on coverage, not our own opinions on whether a topic is notable or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rationale appears to be in error; including material copied from a related article is not reason for deletion; WSJ editorial board has actual significant coverage vs. many other editorial boards (e.g. LAT, Chicago Tribune, WaPo). The fact that those aren't notable doesn't impact this article. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: meets GNG (see [2][3][4]). Nom's argument amounts to WP:OSE (or more accurately, other stuff does not exist), which is not a reason for deletion. Sure, this article duplicates much from The Wall Street Journal, but it does not have to. HouseBlastertalk 23:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Islamic State. My role as an administrator is primarily to determine whether or not to delete, and in this case there is clear consensus against outright deletion, but no consensus for keeping a separate article either.

However, the requested edits to merge the article are something I would do in my capacity as a regular editor. It appears the most popular option here is to merge and redirect to the caliphate article. While considering how to do this however, I struggled to fit it in neatly. The contemporary dreams of a worldwide caliphate are an extreme WP:FRINGE view, whose primary adherents are the Islamic State. The caliphate article is mostly about the historical caliphates, leaving the content here feel out of place. While there is a section on the views of IS in the caliphate article, it also guides readers to the "main article" on the Islamic State. In that article, the organization's ambitions for a worldwide caliphate is well covered, and that article is therefore a more appropriate redirect target.

In my capacity as a regular editor, I will therefore redirect this page to Islamic State. Since the topic already appears to be well covered in that article, I am not merging anything from this article at this point, but the article history remains in case someone thinks otherwise. My decision as a regular editor may of course be amended by any editor who feels they have good cause to do so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide caliphate

Worldwide caliphate (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)

Page doesn't falls under WP:NOTE and content would be better suited to belong under another page, e.g., the Islamic State page as most of the content in this page references said page content. - NHPluto (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Don't all caliphates claim to be "worldwide"? If the article is deleted, a simple merge would not be the right way to go. instead, the material would need to be disbursed to a lot of different places: the articles on the individual quoted proponents (not just Baghdadi), caliphate, and pan-Islamism Furius (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's a wholly redundant/tautologous concept - a caliphate, by definition, is a presumptive epicenter of global Islamic statehood - and again, the sourced do not support 'worldwide caliphate' as a set phrase - they mention both words in sentences, but as a title, it's somewhat synth-like. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This google search is probably more helpful for finding sources as the one linked in the template above returns mounds of ISIS-related sources and sorting through them is rather painful. But Worldwide caliphate does seem to be distinct concept from Caliphate in that it is specific to jihadist movements of the 21st century and is wider than just the activities of ISIS. Some sources covering this:
This is hardly exhaustive. There are plenty of sources for it - both predating ISIS and discussing the concept as an outgrowth of jihadism more generally than ISIS. GoldenRing (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these mentions are trivial or primarily titular, without the phrase or concept of a "worldwide caliphate" being discussed at length. Google counts a mere seven mentions across those three books (six excluding the section title in the second) - none of which signifies particularly significant coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 Popalzai. Clear consensus to redirect, but nobody has explicitly mentioned a target. Reading between the lines I'm led to believe the !votes are referring to Popalzai, but if I'm mistaken, and there isn't clear agreement, a talk-page discussion or RfD may be needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habibzai

Habibzai (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)

Stumbled upon this stub while adding article descriptions in my commute. It's plausible that the subject exists, insofar as there are people with the last name Habibzai. But I've performed a WP:BEFORE and found essentially zero reliable sources discussing it. The Panjab Chiefs mentioned it but I question the reliability of this source, and it's literally one mention. There's a ResearchGate link but that's not a WP:RS. BeReasonabl (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified editors who have edited the article over its 10 year existence. BeReasonabl (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - insufficient coverage for a standalone article; basically a DICDEF. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 10:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was delete. A consensus to delete has formed over the absence of sufficient in-depth treatment in reliable sources. BD2412 T 05:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nigar Helmi Abbasbeyli

Nigar Helmi Abbasbeyli (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 person is not notability, does not meet the criteria. Samral (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article format is an issue, but person is notability per WP:SIGCOV by the sources cited in the article. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only does the subject fail notability, the editor who created the article made exactly 10 edits before posting this article on the main space. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right in questioning the edit history of the creator, however the topic does meet notability through significant coverage apparent in the sources used in the article. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only speak about the Turkish sources here. Ref 2 from an RS is quite lenghty, however, it mostly consists of "Her work will be shown in an expedition" and then it's a bunch of quotes from a few people. I don't really see much significant coverage about her. Ref 3 from an RS is super short, and wouldn't qualify as significant coverage. Ref 4 from an RS is only 3 sentences long, wouldn't call that SIGCOV either. Ref 7 is the exact same source as Ref 2, so it can't be counted as seperate. Haberler.com isn't considered to be reliable on the Turkish Wikipedia anyway. Ref 10 is from a random website I've never heard of, I don't think it's a RS. Now, looking at the Turkish sources, I don't see a reason why I should be convinced of Azerbaijani being any different. I'd be surprised if there suddenly was a huge contrast between the sources. Considering the nominator is fluent in Azerbaijani (and a former azwiki sysop), I'm leaning towards delete as well. Mind you that just looking at the titles, Refs 1 and 8 appear to be about the exact same thing as Ref 2. Gonna pull the refbomb card here. ~StyyxTalk? 17:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She may as well meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary Art/Notability≈ under criteria: "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" as her exhibition called Legacy of Karabakh is displayed at the Atatürk Cultural Center which is a significant venue and the exhibition seems rather significant. @Styyx I see why you are pulling the Refbomb card, I read up on it. However, I think this is not a case of refbomb because even Daily Sabah, a reliable news source given the topic, refers to her as "Famous Azerbaijani Artists". PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay, which tend to have almost no value when it comes to an AfD per WP:SNG. You could make an argument for WP:ENT#4b WP:NARTIST#4b instead, which is at least a guideline. However, I think it's a bit borderline. Having a single exhibition, for just over a week, in a culture center that hosts hundreds of exhibitions a year, IMO doesn't make someone automatically notable, and the guideline itself states that those people are "likely notable", not "definitely". I don't think an argument based on barely meeting an SNG is going to convince others to keep what is pretty much cross-wiki spam. ~StyyxTalk? 18:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by essay? The article seems to talk about what happened at the opening of the exhibit. "launched in AKM by Deputy Minister of Tourism Özgül Özkan Yavuz, Consul General of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Istanbul Narmina Mustafayeva" seems quite significant, especially in the political-historical context that the exhibition sits in with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. What are you referring to with Wikipedia:Notability (people)#4B? The exhibition is talked about in the major Turkish newspapers, not just Daily Sabah, Akşam, Yeni Şafak but also the big daily's Milliyet, Hürriyet have entries about this exhibition. So yeah its not definitely notable as most things as you say, but makes a quite strong case for it being notable enough. PiccklePiclePikel@Styyx (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary Art/Notability you linked above is a Wikipedia essay, which aren't significant at AfD's (as explained by the final paragraph of WP:SNG). I meant to refer to WP:NARTIST#4b, not WP:ENT. The subject barely meets that, but I'm not willing to keep a cross-wiki spam article that only has a claim of notability because they had a 9-day exhibition at AKM which hosts hundreds of those each year. These criteria point that such subjects are likely notable but not definitely, and WP:SNG states that topics meeting such criteria can still be deleted "if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found", which is the case here. ~StyyxTalk? 19:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, @Styyx, then I agree about #4b, which is basically the same criteria that I referred to in the Wikipedia essay. And yes, "such subjects are likely notable but not definitely" . In this case "adequate sourcing or significant coverage" can be found in the form of articles in the major Turkish dailies. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to echo what I said in my first comment: most of these are the exact same source, copied word for word, that can't be considered as seperate. A good chunk aren't reliable anyway. ~StyyxTalk? 06:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Styyx I understand your point, however, that is not completely accurate. Other than the English language Daily Sabah article and the Azeri YeniGundem article, the remaining articles originate from 3 separate sources. One from İhlas News Agency, another from Anadolu Agency, and lastly from an article written in Platin by Olcay Can Kaplan. I have re-organised the list of articles so that they are grouped by the ones with similar origins so that this will be easier to see. These original sources are generally reliable given the topic.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The bludgeoning by PiccklePiclePikel prompted me to take a look at their editing history. Joined 2022-08-25 and has jumped into AFD with a vengeance, with a knowledge of the process and vehemence of opinion that would be pretty hard to acquire in less than two weeks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a very interesting AfD stats page. Did not mean to bludgeon. It's hard to be credible in saying that there is significant coverage without actually going and finding that coverage to present to the discussion, thereby the reason for my further contribution. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging Nythar who has the same concerns about your swift learning curve of the AfD process.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, WomenArtistUpdates. I encountered PiccklePiclePikel during their third day on Wikipedia, here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tello UAV. Their first few edits were random, before focusing on AfD. I don't know why, but their knowledge doesn't appear to be at the level of a newcomer. They might have used an IP before switching to an account, I don't know. Other than that, the discussions I've been having with them (example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music of Your Life) have been exhausting, I feel it might be wp:bludgeoning. NytharT.C 04:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment So based on the source analysis waaaay up top, she isn't notable. If she's been the part of a major museum display/exhibition, fine, but we still need sources to confirm that or it's a tenuous GNG at best. Oaktree b (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also the original creator of the article and the one person who !voted in support of the article seem to have ended their participation on English Wikipedia.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pickle has been asked on his user page about other accounts, socking? I don't know. Oaktree b (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in JStor, Gscohlar, Gbooks, or looking in the ULAN artists search. If she was in the Unesco thing, I'd expect her to at least be in ULAN. zero sources found. Whatever thsat art3f thing is, the artists either have to pay to display or they get sponsored; it looks very much like a sales platform, not an art gallery display (going by what's on their French website, [5]. This whole thing smells fishy. These aren't major art exhibitions; she spent a whole 2 days in the Carousel du Louvre and 2 days in Monaco? The Carousel du Louvre is basically a shopping center, Lacoste and Pandora are there [6]. Art Expo in New York is a trade fair [7]... So displaying there is basically trying to sell stuff. She is in no way notable. This is likely a promotional use of wiki... Shameful, trying to represent these "galleries" as exhibitions in museums. Oaktree b (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete owing to a lack of multiple, in-depth, high quality sources with which to write a biography. Does not meet WP:GNG. Styyx has covered the Turkish sources, I’ve looked at the rest, they are all about an exhibition at the Atatürk Cultural Center and do not represent significant coverage of the subject of the article. My own searches find nothing useful. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. Speedy deleted by patrolling admin (G11). (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wissen Technology

Wissen Technology (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)

Notabilty. I am very much not impressed by the quality of the references. TheLongTone (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- and it's now been deleted. GoldenRing (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rahman Saif Al Ghurair

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

No significant coverage from the sources. Fails gng DavidEfraim (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Arab Emirates. DavidEfraim (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep He has some in depth coverage in Arabic, like this for example, and he was head of the Dubai Chamber of Commerce. In a country the size of UAE this is a pretty important post, given the importance of Dubai specifically, so he may qualify under WP:NPOL. Chagropango (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added a number of sources, some info. As Chagropango points out, in the Emirates Al Ghurair is a prominent business figure. I wouldn't go for NPOL personally, but believe there are enough sources now presented to demonstrate notability despite a general lack of depth. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reason are mention above. I check that news. -- Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 13:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 11:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagi (song) (2nd nomination)

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 Skusta Clee. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 11:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lagi (song)

Lagi (song) (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 cant see any credible claim of notability here; I changed ot to a redirct to the dicography section of the artist's page. This was reverted by the article creator, who left a link supposedly (I cant see how) that established notability. Seeking a broader consensus TheLongTone (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Passes WP:NSONG on all the sources mentioned. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NSONG - Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. It seems unlikely, given the current state of sourcing, that much detail will ever be added to the article beyond what is there. GoldenRing (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NSONG. It didn't even chart. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @HueMan1: So what do you call at the first two sources mentioned also the iMBD Extern link? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SeanJ 2007: like what GoldenRing have said, "a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." IMDb is user-generated. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only coverage in anything approaching an RS is that the artist dedicated the song to their baby child. That can be said in the artist's article and doesn't need a standalone article to say. GoldenRing (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mainstream (disambiguation). The arguments to keep hinge on what this article could be, not what it is; as such there is consensus to redirect, but if anyone wishes to salvage material from the history for a new article, they are welcome to do so. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream

Mainstream (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 am afraid this article is a major mess that may warrant WP:TNT. The treatment of "mainstream" as an overarching concept is very brief and poorly referenced (to a dictionary, and to three academic articles that however do not discuss mainstream as a main concept, but just very minor aspects of it in the context of media consumption in the Czech Republic and mainstream churches). In other words, the definition in the lead, sensible at first glance, seems ORish. Then we have an etymology section and a collection of chapters on "mainstream this" or "mainsteam that", including my new chapter on mainstream fiction (which I mostly merged to literary fiction as well, since it seems to be on this topic). The "Sociology" section seems the worst, since despite being short it seems to mix several concepts, from that of normality to the critique of mainstream sociology. Overall this article seems like a disambig expanded to discuss various concepts that are not connected to one another by any independent, reliable source. I am afraid WP:TNT may apply, with my recommendation being to split/merge some content (ex. the religion and science section can be used to start mainstream religion and mainsttream science articles) and then redirect this to the disambig page. For those who would like to keep this, I ask - can you find a source that discusses mainstream as an overarching concept, as well as the dimensions of m edia, religion, science, fiction, etc.? Otherwise, again, we have a wiki essay on "all things called mainstream" (that is "grossly incomplete", since why not discuss within "mainstream biology", "mainstream physics", "mainstream culture", "mainstream toys", etc.). That's what disambigs are for. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Philosophy, Popular culture, Religion, and Science. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the current disambig page as there is no universal concept of "Mainstream" and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 0xDeadbeef 07:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TNT this as a redirect as per SirHex Deadbeef. If there is anything recoverable from the explosion, you can find good places to store the rubble. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Process comment I do not see a compelling reason to delete this. It looks like writing the "mainstream this" and "mainstream that" articles in summary style could be done incrementally, with content out-merged there, eventually leaving this page as a disambiguation page, without anything needing to be deleted. So, I guess this is a keep in terms that nothing needs to be deleted to accomplish the reasonable goals Piotrus is setting out. In fact, keeping everything here in history might be quite preferable for attribution purposes. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens I am always supportive of preserving history (SOFTDELETE), but redirecting accomplishes this. The problem is that the article is an ORish WP:SYNTH of "various concepts called mainstream" that no reliable source has presented (if it was a list, it would be failing WP:NLIST...). I think the reader would be better served with a disambig and several new articles (I've created a redirect for mainstream literature, and I think mainstream science and mainstream religion can be created as well from splits of content here). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that we're in any substantial disagreement here on the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens Redirect+split vs keep is I think a bit of disagreement :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep and improve. Obviously "mainstream" is a word evocative of thought that is the opposite of whatever is considered "fringe". Identifying and describing its parameters may be difficult, but I feel we owe it to our readers. BD2412 T 03:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - I would have no objection to moving this to draft pending improvements. BD2412 T 03:03, 3 September 2022 (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, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to disambiguation page. Does a much better job of getting people to relevant information. Cobbling together every definition of mainstream is going to be WP:OR and doesn't fit on Wikipedia. Jontesta (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to mainstream (disambiguation). I can see what has been attempted here and respect the effort, but the asserted definition of the topic is false. Mainstream does not include all popular culture, nor is it mutually exclusive with the idea of a subculture. A mainstream results from the predominant power structure within any given culture - this may contradict the mainstream of other fields or cultures and may be at odds with popular culture (consider the assertion in mainstream economics that all market actions are rational vs the popular belief that people's actions are regularly impulsive and/or irrational).
It does not make sense to attempt a holistic treatment of mainstream because it does not exist in a holistic way. Similarly a summary article isn't viable because there are too many mainstreams to cover (mainstream food, mainstream cars, mainstream children's books) and most treatments of that subject are highly culturally specific (for example, in China the Jonas Brothers are niche, not mainstream). We shouldn't encourage the creation of an article that defines mainstream as something that exists outside of its originating context. SFB 20:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum Economist

Petroleum Economist (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 for over a decade Chidgk1 (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I see the article was created by an SPA. Mccapra (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the magazine exists, but most of the prose in the article is unsourced and I can't find anything to support notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted per G11. (non-admin closure) – The Grid (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CloudMounter

CloudMounter (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)

Is this notable? Seems like an advertisement. -- Beland (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It does get some mentions in books such as [8] and Mac magazines, but these are neither significant coverage nor in any way exceptional. It sits along side mention of countless other applications that are of use but none of which are significant enough for an encylopaedia article. This page reads like a promotional piece (per nom) and if it were re-written with NPOV it would just be the basic description of what the app does. It is not unique. Mountain Duck (no article) and Cyberduck do the same thing among others. Being open source, there is a bit more to say about Cyberduck, but should that be considered at AfD too? Cloud mounting is, in any case, only marketing speak for long established Virtual file system concepts and the application merely rolls multiple network filestore mounting options into one - and it was not the first to do so by any means. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G11. I've tagged as such. GoldenRing (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a single reference, clearly very promotional, and add onto that that the article's creator is a blocked sockpuppet... Definitely doesn't belong here. PopoDameron (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've speedied as it unquestionably meets the criteria for both A7 and G11. Deb (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. Speedy deleted by patrolling admin (G11) (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Strategy

Greenwich Strategy (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG, not enough sources found, not particularly notable, advertisement-like article. NytharT.C 06:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amanusha

Amanusha (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 released during Internet times. Surprised by the lack of reviews/production sources. This article was probably created with the mindset that later sources would allow the article to be expanded. Because of the lack of sources, the expansion never happened. I have added two sources. In the article, two are about the film's audio launch. The second source added is about an actor from the film talking about all the films he his working on and only briefly mentions the film.

The presence of notable actor Jackie Shroff doesn't inherently make the film notable. The film would be notable if someone can find a review or a source about the cast/crew member talking about the film in detail. Currently fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). DareshMohan (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No additional coverage came up in my search. QuietHere (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is an unresolved WP:V issue, and given the lack of reliable sourcing, or presence on maps, that seems to be a decent argument. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

McDaniel, Indiana

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

Prodded as the non-notable subdivision that it is, was redirected to the township on the claim that WP:NGEO says this ought to be done. First, I have to say that I don't know whether townships in Indiana are a particularly important layer of organization. Be that as it may, this comes down, once again, to the issue of translating GNIS's "populated place" into "unincorporated community". We've found out long ago that this was a mechanical substitution for a term which has proven to be quite sketchy, so I don't see how we make any claims about what this place is using GNIS as an authority, which is what is happening. I can tell it's a subdivision by looking at the maps and aerials, but that isn't going to cut it for writing an article by our standards. These subdivisions need to be deleted, and these township-level lists of "unincorporated communities' need to go away. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Washington Township, Morgan County, Indiana Martinsville, Indiana per Wikipedia:NGEO: If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. Djflem (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reverting a perfectly valid redirect for the sole purpose of being able to send it to AFD is both unconstructive and a waste of editors' time here. As long as it remains mentioned in the Washington Township article then the redirect is valid. The issue should be taken up on that article first before trying to delete links to it. SpinningSpark 10:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per Wikipedia:Deletion by redirection; Redirecting an article is often an appropriate course of action to be taken when an article clearly fails to meet the general notability guidelines for inclusion. In such cases, a bold redirect to an appropriate page allows the history of the article to be maintained such that future editors may expand the article to establish notability for the subject. And mention in township article should be kept Djflem (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but it still needs a reliable source at least confirming existence. I'm not seeing anything that does that. GNIS is not reliable for identifying communities. SpinningSpark 12:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any sources beyond the WP:GNIS database attesting to what this is, not even a subdivision or housing development. There's a very short McDaniel Road leading to a farm – this farm has a strip of grass used as an airstrip. [9] says it's owned by a Jim McDaniel. McDaniel Road attaches Robin Road and Hacker Drive that have homes, but it doesn't seem like this is "an unincorporated community" or even a generic subdivision or housing development named after this person. The brother of this or a previous McDaniel was killed in a plane crash departing from here in 1972. It's unconstructive and a waste of editors' time to suggest this zero-effort mass-produced junk "article" should be kept or redirected when we have zero verification of what this place is exactly or that it's notable. Even if the subdivision on Hacker Drive is or was called McDaniel, this is not a notable place, and subdivisions, especially those that are mere houses on a street like this, should not be listed in township articles in general (Indiana has ~5,000 homeowners' associations, which should not be catalogued on Wikipedia, whether these "communities" are in an incorporated area or not). I have removed it from Washington Township since without better sourcing we have no proof it's an "unincorporated town" as was listed there. Reywas92Talk 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was unable to find anything to help suggest this is notable. Jacona (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would support the attempt to redirect, except I cannot find any evidence that this is a populated place (given known issues with the reliability of GNIS). Per Reywas92 it seems to be the name of a small airstrip at best and is not an unincorporated community. No redirect is needed and it is not as if there is any significant edit history that would be lost anyway. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The 1967 topo map shows "McDaniel" next to the small group of homes on Hacker Drive, in the same typeface as other small subdivisions around Martinsville, and the airstrip labeled as "McDaniels Field" appears just to the south in the 1980 version. Based on the (extremely sparse) newspaper coverage, I would surmise that the McDaniel family owned farmland in this area and are responsible for the eponymous road, airstrip and subdivision, none of which are notable under GEOLAND or GNG. I don't think we have enough to justify a mention, or even a redirect, in the Martinsville article. –dlthewave ☎ 18:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 would remind editors, "It will be notable" has been identified by the community as a bad argument -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vectare

Vectare (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:CORP, no significant coverage in reliable sources, just passing mentions of service changes in local press. Won a trade award in 2018, but award's notability looks weak. Draftified, then declined twice at draft, then moved to Vectare (bus operator) anyway, by a new account that certainly seems to have hit the ground running on bus company templates and articles. Storchy (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For scrutiny of the newly added references.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the trade magazines cited are independent, reliable sources and they contain significant coverage of the subject. WaggersTALK 09:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability, generally a minimum of two sources of deep or significant coverage. WP:CORPDEPTH - in-depth information *on the company* WP:ORGIND - "Independent Content" which 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. Leaving aside the primary sources, we're left with 8 others as follows:
    • This from Route One is a brief mention (2 sentences) of the company because the founder (who was 19 at the time in 2016) describes his business objectives. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
    • This next from Route One is largely an interview with some Vectare execs who describe the software that they're developing to make school bus coordination easier. All of the information is provided by the execs (fails ORGIND) and hardly anything about the topic company (fails CORPDEPTH)
    • The UK Bus Awards in 2018 held a New Horizons Award and awarded the Gold Medal to the topic company for the software they've developed. The award is non-notable for the purposes of establishing notability. Fails CORPDEPTH
    • This from Essex Highways and Essex County Council shows a map of two bus routes and says that the topic company is now operating these routes on behalf of Essex County Council. No in-depth info, fails CORPDEPTH. Arguably this is also an announcement by an affiliated partner, fails ORGIND
    • This from Coach & Bus Week is a short summary of the above announcement from Essex Highways with a quote from a councillor. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
    • This from ArrivaBus is a service the topic company replaced, doesn't mention the topic company, not really relevant for notability purposes. Fails CORPDEPTH
    • This in Leicestershire Live is a good piece on the new on-demand service operated by the topic company but it doesn't provide any "Independent Content" not in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
    • This from bustimes.org appears to be a website run by an enthusiast but the "unofficial" disclaimer lends itself to being rejected as a reliable source.
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. NemesisAT provides a reasoning of adding "reliable publications" - this is pretty much a given *before* examining the content of each source to see if it meets NCORP. Waggers says the references from trade magazines are "independent, reliable sources" that "contain significant coverage of the subject" - I disagree. Especially using the NCORP definition of independent to include "Independent Content". In addition, none of the articles are in-depth about the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I largely agree with HighKing's NCORP analysis, so I don't think I need to walk through the references individually: suffice it to say that they lack independent content, don't discuss the company in sufficient depth, or both. There are a few other sources that haven't yet been mentioned (e.g. [10]), but they suffer from the same shortfalls. Another point is that WP:AUD doesn't seem to be satisfied: the only available sources appear to be "media of limited interest and circulation" (e.g. trade journals, which are also explicitly called out as problematic at WP:ORGIND) or "local media", and AUD says we need more than that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte. Lacks independent sources for WP:CORPDEPTH. The two Route-one.net citations make only passing mention. The UK Bus Awards citation has a byline "content provided by Vectare". The operating area cites the company's own site in a password protect area. The sole objective citation was Coach&Bus Week which only mentioned their takeover of a park & ride service. Other sources refer to the company's own site. Blue Riband► 14:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of sourced references included compared to some articles which remain and have no AFD - the operator is growing and over time more references will no doubt surface. Mranon2022 (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:WAX. If in a few years time it becomes notable enough to gain substantial, independent coverage to show notability, the article can always be recreated. Storchy (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per source analysis by HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Highking's source analysis is persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calin Ile

Calin Ile (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 particular evidence of notability, essentially a man who’s had a career. The French award he received has been held by hundreds of thousands of people, while being named hotelier of the year is of marginal relevance absent other distinguishing factors.

The coverage leaves much to be desired: it’s mostly the subject pontificating about himself or his industry; unsurprising, as he’s also in public relations. This, from a dubious source no less, calls him “super trained, experienced, dedicated and devoted”, which tells you all you need to know about its objectivity. - Biruitorul Talk 04:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources like Ziarul Financiar, Forbes Romania, Romania Insider, economedia, Business Review and others. I didn't cite WOWbiz because it's an interview but it does show the subject is well known to the Romanian media.
  2. The award Order of Agricultural Merit he received is notable anyway, regardless of how many people have gained it since 1883. Also being "hotelier of the year" is a distinguished achievement, just like being "actor of the year" would be in an actor's career.
  3. The source mentioned in the nomination is mainly used for some basic info like DOB, place of birth and education etc, his notability doesn't rely on it. Picking up just one source out of 16 doesn't help the cause. Insight 3 (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, let’s point out that this vote comes from the article creator, an individual who has previously fought to keep articles he’s created, only to see them deleted.
      • Next: yes, the Order of Agricultural Merit is a notable award, but not all its hundreds of thousands of recipients are automatically notable. I hope we can make that distinction. And no, being named “hotelier of the year” is not necessarily a sign of notability, unless accompanied by coverage outside the industry echo chamber.
      • Finally, the sources mentioned really do nothing to bolster a notability claim. Ziarul Financiar simply quotes the subject, that’s it. The others deal with professional moves he is making: leaving a management job, being appointed manager of a new hotel (2) and entering a business partnership with some guy. All of this is routine coverage of a random person’s career, of the type that fills similar publications every day of the week. It’s essentially PR about someone who happens to be an expert at PR. None of it is remotely encyclopedic in character, as defined by WP:BASIC: “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject”. — Biruitorul Talk 07:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I waited for two weeks for others to participate here, when no one came, I used my right to defend the article that I created and which I believe deserves to stay. We create articles and sometimes they get deleted too, what's the point here? BTW, I didn't create the second one you mentioned!
        • It is self-contradictory to say a notable award is given to an individual without any merit that can make them distinguished from other ordinary non-notable people. The "hotelier of the year" honor is reported by two independent magazines ([11] & [12]) which are quite outside the "industry echo chamber".
        • This is exactly how media covers active careers of living people, if they are not notable who cares what job they are leaving and with whom they are making partnerships. The real things to judge are 1) the coverage is significant (i.e. the sources are mainly about the subject, not just passing mentions), 2) the sources are independent of the subject (even you don't deny that), 3) they are multiple (more than one, simple math), and are reliable (aren't they?) Insight 3 (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let’s try this again. Here is the list of the agriculture award recipients — for just this year. 62 pages long, hundreds of individuals. Approximately zero of them are notable by our standards. If any of them are notable, it’s not solely on the basis of the award.
    • Regarding your hotelier award sources: the first includes phrases such as “Ile really is a person with whom you can chat for hours on end”, “Ile truly is the professional missing from management teams”, “in a single word, he defines himself as a FRIEND”. Objective journalism, indeed. The second source calls itself “the magazine of the Romanian hospitality industry”, so is quite literally the mouthpiece of the industry echo chamber.
    • It took me about five minutes to discover another Romanian CEO, along with five reasonably independent sources about her: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Does this imply Mihaela Bîtu deserves an article here? Not really: it’s the type of routine coverage the business press awards to any CEO. Same with this Ile fellow. — Biruitorul Talk 05:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's really hard to look for everyone's notability in the list. To write a Wiki biography, we need more info than just being in a list of recipients (and this is not the case for Calin Ile). But I am sure, if a wiki page is set for any of them, the award will be mentioned as a sign of notability on it.
      • For 'Hotelier of the Year', sources exist outside the hospitality industry as well:
      Bihon
      B365
      Its just a matter of finding more sources with deep online search.
      • The person you mentioned may or may not be notable, but if I say yes she is, you will bring another name and so on. Like "other stuff exists", "other people exist" is also not very helpful argument. Moreover, Calin Ile is not just a GM appointed here and there, as per sources, he is the president of the Romanian Hospitality Industry Federation (FIHR) and the the spokesperson for the Alliance for Tourism (APT). So, no comparison with your example. Insight 3 (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ran a couple of references through a translator and they are mainly Calin's comments the hospitality/tourism sector and his company's strategy for getting through the pandemic. Not seeing anything that deals specifically with the subject in any depth. The two awards might get him across the line but it's hard to say.-KH-1 (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely, you haven't gone through all the references, the references cited in the lead section are just additional. The subject has pretty significant coverage here: [18], [19], [20]. He is also covered in the Forbes Romania.
    Importantly, one should not expect a hotelier to have the kind of media coverage that actors, sports people, or politicians usually get. Insight 3 (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:
    • Some excerpts from three articles cited by Insight, which sound like significant coverage directly about his life to me:
      • Bihon.ro: "Călin Ile is general manager at Hote Ibis and teacher at ASE. Călin Ile attended specialization courses in the field of tourism in Denmark, Holland and France, executive manager with excellent results at Hotel Continental in Bucharest at only 27 years old, where he learns and perfects his managerial activity and acquires the experience and competence to be entrusted with the opening the first Ibis Hotel in Romania, in Bucharest."
      • Coltisor: "In a few words, Călin Ile's CV includes several milestones: born in Bucharest 40 or so years ago, graduated in 1995 from the Faculty of Tourism within ASE Bucharest, later with specialization courses in the field of tourism in Denmark, Holland and France..."
      • Infotravel Romania: "An ASE graduate, Călin Ile has been part of the Ibis team since the hotel chain arrived in Romania in 2001. He contributed to the opening of the first Ibis hotel in Bucharest, and then to the development of the network to 4 hotels today. He also holds the position of vice-president of the Romanian Hotel Industry Federation since May 2011."
    • — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:38, 7 September 2022 (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! 06:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Another excerpt from another mentioned source.
    • Insociety.ro interview article's non-interview intro: "Călin does not regret for a moment the choice to be a hotelier, an idea that was imprinted in his mind when he was 18 years old, after, together with a classmate, organize coming-of-age parties or even New Year's Eve parties. However, it was not his only option, since, as he himself confesses, he also flirted with the idea of becoming a banker – being an analytical person, with some inclination towards numbers and statistics, or a teacher, as a continuation of his mother's work sale, math teacher all her life. Personally, the biggest challenge was when he left his hometown, Marghita (Bihor county), and came alone to Bucharest, scared, perhaps, of everything that was going to happen to him. He was only 18 years old, but he managed. Professional, the opportunity to be the director of the Continental Hotel in Bucharest, an emblematic hotel on Calea Victoriei, at only 25 years old, was, without a doubt, the biggest challenge."
    • This is clearly biographical information directly about Calin himself. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It’s also blatantly promotional, which sort of blunts its value as a quotable source. — Biruitorul Talk 17:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. While I agree the article is blatently promotional and reads like a puffed professional resume, the Médaille d'honneur agricole is a state award in France and recipients of state awards would generally pass the WP:GNG threshold. Keep but rewrite to tone down the overly promotional tone. The article creator should note that there is no ownership of articles. Any editor can edit at any time, including a re-write for a neutral POV and the addition of any criticism that may be published in reliable sources. Blue Riband► 14:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuil Grinshpun

Emmanuil Grinshpun (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 real indication of notability or significant coverage, just passing mentions. It’s worth noting that the article creator has almost no other edits; given the subject’s wealth, hm. - Biruitorul Talk 03:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment searching this person's name in Google at the news section gives 12 articles, most recent, which can be used as sources. Super Ψ Dro 09:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep going through the refs used within the article, as well as sources available about them online, they pass WP:GNG - multiple in-depth articles in reliable publications that are independent of the subject. Angiewalter37 (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be helpful if you provided an example. Please show us at least one source that you believe strengthens a claim to passing WP:ANYBIO. — Biruitorul Talk 10:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless better sources are found. I went through the sources in the article and there are none that are significantly about him - they are all name-checks, and cannot even be used to support his educational info. A search online turns up at least a dozen sites with bios of him, and they all begin "Emmanuil Grinshpun is a highly regarded philanthropist and world-renowned entrepreneur ..." which leads me to believe that 1) there is only one bio and 2) it is a PR piece. Clearly a person contributing to his community, but lacking the reliable, significant sources required for Wikipedia. Lamona (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2022 (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! 06:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:PROMO. Non-notable individual who has a lot of money and is well connected. Subject lacks significant coverage. I can't find anything more reliable that the PR pieces used. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ophur

Ophur (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 unable to find anything about the band, and the four refs aren't great. It looks like they also went by 'Ophurall', and one of their band members passed a few years later. Their stuff is kindly available on the Internet Archive (and on their website), but those things don't indicate notability. In essence, a failure of WP:BAND. SWinxy (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has four references already Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor & Burns Architects

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

Doesn't meet the notability criteria for companies. None of the sources listed, nor any I was able to find through searching, provided significant coverage of the company itself. In addition, the most frequent contributors are COI editors, both past/present employees and one of its owners. The article reads more like a promotional pamphlet of the company's projects and accolades. If kept, this should stripped back to a stub. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: The article creator (Jameshf) was likely the firm's intern named by the company's principal (TBAWinter58Wikipedia, self-identified as Carol Burns), in this edit. My guess is that they were editing at the direction of their superiors, or on their own in an earnest attempt to please them. Since their activity predates the WP:PAID policy, they can't be faulted for that... but WP:COI and WP:PROMO violations abound. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dodson Junction, West Virginia

Dodson Junction, West Virginia (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 convinced this is a notable location. All I'm finding is a railroad point on the Frisco in Missouri, several references to a point on the Dayton and Western Railroad that is apparently not this site. This non-accessible passing mention seems to be all I can find. Page creator has a history of making junk and over 200 of their created pages have been deleted. No indication this meets WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Hog Farm Talk 04:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and West Virginia. Hog Farm Talk 04:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not finding any newspaper coverage or anything to suggest that this was ever a community. –dlthewave ☎ 15:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a WP:V issue due to lack of sourcing that Dodson Junction is, or ever was, a community. Looking at Google Maps, there is a small community at the given location with some houses along a road and a volunteer fire station, but this community is Morrisvale, West Virginia, and it already has an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Fork Junction, West Virginia

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

A couple references in real estate listings to the "Town of Clear Fork Junction" are quite confusing, as I can nothing referencing this significantly - simply as a railroad waypoint or references to geographic item's relative locations to this. Can't establish that this meets WP:GEOLAND and I'm seeing no evidence that WP:GNG is either. Hog Farm Talk 03:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete In recent years a bunch of houses have been built along the highway on the south side of the river, but the junction itself was removed long ago, and in its heyday there weren't significant structures there. Mangoe (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Maps and newspapers refer to a railroad junction, not a community, and there's no significant coverage to establish GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Lapore

John Lapore (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 about soccer player who had a brief career in the third level of US club soccer, and fails WP:GNG. The only online coverage I can find is routine/trivial, which isn't surprising for someone who played at this low level of club soccer at the time. Note that this BLP has been in this poorly-sourced state since 2007. Jogurney (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeless Cool

Timeless Cool (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG, doesn't appear to have notable sources. NytharT.C 02:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep with the sourcing issues resolved. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 10:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Your Life

Music of Your Life (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. After a cleanup of promotional, unsourced, and trivial life-story style language, further searches show minimal results. NytharT.C 02:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. NytharT.C 02:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see that you have removed all the sources from the article right before nominating it for deletion? Music of Your Life is publicly traded under OTCQB:MYLI, Music Of Your Life, Inc. (OTCQB: MYLI) $82 Million Revenue Projected Transformation to Subscription Model. Have you done WP:BEFORE? I seem to be getting lots of results such as MAY 21, 2009, April 3, 1981 , June 20, 2016, thats sources from three separate decades.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PiccklePiclePikel: This is the version before I cleaned it up. Would you mind explaining how a primary source (the company website), WP:ROUTINE coverage by radio-info.com, and two other difficult-to-access sources (which do not alone appear to indicate notability) are relevant? NytharT.C 17:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought you had removed only 2 sources. But now I see you have removed 4! Sources should not be removed simply because you were unable to access them. In addition with the two Billboard (magazine) articles that were referenced, the article would have apparently indicated its own notability in the version before your edits. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PiccklePiclePikel: No, for reasons included in my nomination summary. Read it. NytharT.C 17:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You said "two other difficult-to-access sources (which do not alone appear to indicate notability)" regarding to the articles in Billboard (magazine), did you or did you not access them? PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PiccklePiclePikel: Have a look at what the Billboard sources are referenced for in the article. One of them cites something about playing hours of Frank Sinatra's music after his death, which isn't notable. The other is cited for two different things (a, b) which are about commercials and advertisements; see them for yourself. Neither the first Billboard source nor the second source are used to reference something of notability in the article. When I removed the non-notable sections, I also removed the sources; why would I just leave the sources, if they aren't used for anything? This + them being difficult to access (to answer your question, I didn't access them), led me to remove them. Objection? NytharT.C 17:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply put, you are not supposed to remove any sources for simply not being able to access them at the time. You have not read either of those articles that were used as sources. Also i'm not convinced that removing those sources and the sections of the article that those were used as references for was a right move as I think you simply saw the word "commercial" and decided it doesn't belong. Part of the sentences talk about the historical context of commercials and advertising at the time, that seems quite relevant in the context of an article about a radio station. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PiccklePiclePikel: This is going in the direction of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. No, your description of what the Billboard sources reference is incorrect. Source #3 is placed after: "Films such as Sleepless in Seattle, and a number of commercials, had used the music found in the adult standards format." -- not relevant to the subject of the article, simply speaking of the history of "adult standards format" (see Category:Adult standards radio stations in the United States). Source #3 is also placed after: "Affiliates were learning that going after over-50 listeners was nothing to be ashamed of; these people were active and had much money to spend, and advertisers could reach them if they just made the effort." -- again, not relevant; it's referring to history. Source #4 is placed after: "When Frank Sinatra died in 1998, Music of Your Life played 36 straight hours of his music. Since more people listened to this special programming than to what the format usually aired, the popularity of the music with a new audience was reinforced." -- is this promotional, non-notable section the only notable thing this radio network has done?
    1. Moving on to these new sources you provided -- so what if it's publicly traded? Another source you've provided (Yahoo Finance) seems to me to be routine coverage -- it's Yahoo Finance, a finance website, and it's focused on CEO Marc Angell's "expectations" (saying he "expects") with insignificant amounts of company history. Also, it's an interview; see WP:42#Independent Sources. It's also a promotional article, asking the reader to visit the Music of Your Life website.
    2. The World Radio History source is also an interview (see bottom-left and top-center of the PDF).
    3. The Prweb source isn't an wp:independent source. The author is MARC ANGELL, the CEO of the company that owns Music of Your Life (see right side).
    You've presented your points and I've presented mine. End of exchange. NytharT.C 20:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it sounds exactly as if WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies to you. The point is, you DELETED a source that you DID NOT READ. You do not know to what extent the source talked about Music of Your Life specifically and presumably one of those articles was quite specifically about it given that Music of Your Life is in the title. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PiccklePiclePikel: Please remain civil. No, the problem isn't that I removed a source "that I didn't read". I removed the section that cited it and there wasn't a need for it. I don't have to read it. NytharT.C 20:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    About your earlier question, you are right, but "Editors coming across an article of ... a company without ... references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." per WP:LISTED. Generally we should not just remove sources. Even if it was the right move to delete that part of the article, which is an open question since none of us actually read the source, you can keep the source there in a list of sources that do not have in-line citations. We don't know what other parts of the article used information from that source since the article lacks substantial in-line citations. Then, later on, an editor who is able to access that source, or looks up that text in a physical library, can make a judgement based on the actual contents of that source. It seems a bit disingenuous to put up an article for deletion citing 'inability to find sources', when you have personally deleted sources from that same article that you have not had access to.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PiccklePiclePikel: Okay that makes sense, I've readded both Billboard references. The primary source and the WP:ROUTINE radio-info.com I've kept out. NytharT.C 22:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Zero sources found, one brief mention of the host, rest are hits on the phrase. Not sure how they could distribute the music over the internet in 1997 to HD radio stations, the bandwidth wasn't available yet and you were still in the era of floppy discs and CD-R's that crapped out of you sneezed on them, with a whopping 2x recording speed. Almost appears made up. Oaktree b (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources used are from 1997, but the "thing" has been distributing music since 1978? That's well before the computer era. The article is nonsense as it stands. TNT is the best option, with proper sourcing, but none has been found; still leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could not find any reliable sources about the history of this enterprise. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep per below I was trying to remember where I've heard of TVS before, and then I remembered TVS Television Network, who had its trademarks bought out by one of those "Internet moguls" who throw a bunch of random public domain or giveaway content onto a server under its name and call it a Roku channel and whose spam I had to keep out of a historical article (see here for what they air, a lot of sketchy 'off-VHS' content which I'm sure they don't own or is in the 'orphaned' grey area where its ultimate owners in old sports leagues no longer exist).
So for this...a dying trademark for a very terminal and generic 'nostalgia standards' format whose only WP:N was a trademark for a radio network at a time they were rare, but is now standard in the radio industry, and paying celebrities to patter between the music to instead of generic DJs, with ratings that barely exist. And since 2013 when it was sold off it's been part of those 'Internet moguls with big dreams' networks you've probably got spam about as a Pink Sheets 'investment opportunity' (yup, it's one of those penny stocks) involving dead properties that are resurrected as barely-viable zombie operations (there are multiple standards stations that don't make you pay $5/month to access just one audio feed on a WordPress site of questionable security). It's part of a company called The Marquie Group that also has...a beauty line?! And I guess a CBD line (which is a vanity company for the owner's wife, who apparently hosts a beauty tips segment for millennials and zoomers on an AM standards radio network for some reason. Yeah...). This isn't anything outside a small mention in the Peter Marshall, Wink Martindale and Gary Owens articles as part of their late life sections when the network was viable, not a money vacuum for weird daytraders. Nate • (chatter) 10:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refocus on the original radio format. It looks like corporate cruft in the present day, from which no notability is derived, is weighing the page down badly. However, there is SIGCOV on the network and stations from the 80s.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed; those sources truly help the article and it should be focused on its successful prime, not its struggling current penny stock iteration; despite what I said above, I knew Sammi would find much better sources for this which are much more promising than the Angell version. Nate • (chatter) 19:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mrschimpf (and others), I have refocused the article using the references below and others. I can't get any SIGCOV or even an interview quote past 2009, so I'm not sure how much of its latter-day existence can or should be covered. I think that the sources I have found and rewritten copy also rebut the assertions by @Oaktree b in particular. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ van Vugt, Harry (February 13, 1987). "CKLW seeks more 'life' from its music". The Windsor Star. Windsor, Ontario, Canada. p. C1. Retrieved September 11, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
  2. ^ King, Bill (June 25, 1982). "Tuned To The Past: Going For The Gray Hairs, Mining Gold". The Atlanta Constitution. Atlanta, Georgia. p. 1-B, 5-B. Retrieved September 11, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
  3. ^ Pope, Leroy (August 4, 1982). "Successful selling of a music style". The News. Paterson, New Jersey. UPI. p. 28. Retrieved September 11, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
  4. ^ Reddick, David (February 26, 1984). "'Music of Your Life' Singing the Right Tune". The Palm Beach Post. West Palm Beach, Florida. p. C1. Retrieved September 11, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
  5. ^ Leader, John (April 3, 1981). "Al Ham's 'Music of Your Life': A New Format For An Older Audience" (PDF). Radio & Records. p. 19 – via World Radio History.
  6. ^ "Big Names Of Past Attract Top Ratings" (PDF). Billboard. September 22, 1979. p. 33 – via World Radio History.
  • Keep as this brand was popular amongst older listeners in years gone by. It is also, in radio circles, so synonymous with the adult standards format that “Music of Your Life”, or “MOYL”, gets used as the format’s name instead of adult standards. It has become the generic term in some cases like Kleenex has to facial tissue. Stereorock (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Green Elephant Vegetarian Bistro

AfDs for this article:
Green Elephant Vegetarian Bistro (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)

Appears to have COI, little significant coverage Gtag10 (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the guideline I linked...

Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement: [...] inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists (If the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide, the inclusion counts like any other reliable source, but it does not exempt the article from the normal value of providing evidence that independent sources discuss the subject.)

I don't see any lists here that count as significant coverage by that wording. Ibadibam (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Schwartz, James H. (2016-01-24). "Dine Out Maine: Green Elephant in Portland. The vegetarian food isn't groundbreaking, but it is mostly satisfying". Maine Sunday Telegram. Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

      The restaurant review notes: "Green Elephant, a self-styled “vegetarian bistro” in downtown Portland, is a completely different animal. Yes, it’s dynamic and hip, with the electric-green wall behind the bar and a veneer of rough-cut stone blocks dominating the other side of the dining room. But it’s also affordable (most entrees cost $15 or less). And it’s relaxed; an invitation on the restaurant’s website encourages you to come as you are, “with your best formal attire or in your favorite pajamas.” ... Meat-free restaurants may not be for everyone. But Green Elephant comes close. It’s fun, congenial and healthful, an easy place for vegetarians, dedicated carnivores – and the rest of us – to enjoy."

    2. Kamila, Avery Yale (2022-06-12). "15 years later, a vegan pioneer still sets the standard. The Green Elephant serves vegan versions of familiar Thai dishes". Portland Press Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

      The article notes: "Before chef Dan Sriprasert and his business partner Bob Wongsaichau opened the Green Elephant Vegetarian Bistro 15 years ago, they spotted Portland’s demand for more vegetarian restaurants in their tofu sales. ... The Green Elephant wasn’t Portland’s first vegetarian restaurant and it isn’t the city’s only vegetarian restaurant, but its opening did bring something new to town: A vegetarian restaurant with affordable pricing yet worthy of a date night. With its blond wood floors, bauble-covered chandelier and neon green wall, plus its menu of familiar dishes, the restaurant soon attracted lines of diners waiting for a table. Fifteen years later, the demand and the affordable pricing remain. Even now, when prices of food are rising fast, the most expensive menu item costs $18 (Siamese dream curry noodles), and most entrees are priced around $15."

    3. Forrest, Rachel (2015-10-15). "Green Elephant serves bevy of vegetarian options". Foster's Daily Democrat. Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

      The restaurant review notes: "Portland's Green Elephant Vegetarian Bistro (they also have Boda in Portland) has opened at PortWalk and every single dish is vegetarian. Many are vegan, as well as gluten-free. ... The space is modern and warm with lots of sleek wood and cool accents, which is what you'd expect in this new section of town. Some call it FauxPo, and I get that. ... There is a full bar at Green Elephant, with some exotic flavors in the drinks, as well as good beer and wine lists. The bartenders on one night seemed a bit frazzled, but on another, more smooth and calm."

    4. Ricchio, Joe (April 2011). "Green Elephant". Maine. Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

      The restaurant review notes: "Sister to Portland’s Boda, Green Elephant provides innovative, delicious, and healthy Asian-inspired fare for vegans and omnivores alike. ... Moving into their fourth year of operation as the only fully vegetarian dining option in the greater Portland area, Green Elephant continues to be a destination for those who not only like their vegetables, but like them cooked with some style and international flavor."

    5. Nangle, Hilary (2012-04-29). "10 Maine restaurants where vegetarians reign". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

      The restaurant review notes: "The Asian-inspired fare at Green Elephant Vegetarian Bistro (608 Congress St., Portland, 207-347-3111, www .greenelephantmaine.com, $10-$16) has persuaded many carnivores that going veggie does not mean sacrificing flavor. Every menu item, including wine, is labeled as vegan, gluten free, wheat free, and/or organic. Regulars know to begin with the roti canai, an Indian flatbread paired with a curry dip. After that, favorites include char guayteow, Siamese dream curry noodle, citrus spare ribs, and tofu tikka masala. One taste and you’ll see the light. This place is extremely popular, and does not take reservations."

    6. Kamila, Avery Yale (2020-01-19). "Vegan Kitchen: Portland's vegan restaurant scene is red-hot". Portland Press Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

      The article provides a few sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "They join the state’s reigning vegetarian restaurant queen, the Green Elephant – the full-service, all-vegetarian, mostly vegan, pan-Asian restaurant on Congress Street in the Arts District continues to pack its dining room night after night more than 12 years after opening."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Green Elephant Vegetarian Bistro to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - coverage located by Cunard demonstrates conclusively the subject meets the subject specific notability guideline NCORP. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:PRODUCTREV emphasizes the caution we must take in using product reviews to establish notability. (This makes sense, intuitively—any number of local restaurants would otherwise be notable.) In light of this I'd like to see some more as to why these reviews are enough to contribute to WP:NCORP. Observing Cunard's other sources: #1 is a passing mention imv (part of a list of restaurants closing for COVID), #2 fails source independence (heavily based on interviews), #6 is fairly passing as well. The rest are reviews. That said, I don't think the restaurant has had a ceaseless promotional machine, and has received some broader attention than just Portland, so I'm leaning toward keep. Ovinus (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents

Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents (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)

Extremely unencyclopedic, filled with links to transcripts and not much else. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 14:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy hearings could also be deleted for the same reason. Bonewah (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource, which is a repository of documents. BD2412 T 22:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource, per BD2412. Not suitable for WP, per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Sal2100 (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bringing attention to the proposal to convert to Wikisource pages instead.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Andre🚐 00:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tsahi Merkur

Tsahi Merkur (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)

Parking lot owner/operator. Seems to lack notability. Sources mostly just discuss his parking company and not much about him. Andre🚐 15:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Israel. Andre🚐 15:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see sufficient coverage for the WP:GNG in the Hebrew and English entries. Our text needs cleanup. Now, even if it would be true that his companies receive much more attention (not proven!), why was deletion suggested, rather than a rework to the investment firm done? gidonb (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The only source I found about him was this one: [22] which feels a bit like a puff/fluff piece. I don't speak Hebrew unless it's the hamotzi. If you have sufficient coverage of him in other sources, that aren't just about the parking garage company making deals and acquiring other parking garage companies, feel free to post them. Andre🚐 01:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Such responses are too common. Please start with a thorough WP:BEFORE, taking into account WP:NEXIST and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. After that there will be no need to belittle subjects of WP:BLP and the sources that describe them. Just as bringing forth bread from the earth is a process, so are good AfDs! gidonb (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude talk 08:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Provided sources have been challenged as not helping to fulfil the WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, sourcing provided indicates a WP:GNG pass, with extensive coverage in major Israeli newspapers. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. and none is going to emerge while his death is literally in the news. Cases are made on both sides (for this purpose, keeping keep/merge together as in preserve vs. not preserving the content) from established editors, and even discounting SPAs and non-policy based !votes, there does not even appear to be a forming consensus. While I do not see a scenario where the content is not included,discussion on where the information is best presented will be helpful tothe reader and could possibly lead to better resolution, including Legacy, Funeral information referenced below. Star Mississippi 02:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Mikhail Gorbachev

Death of Mikhail Gorbachev (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)

Deletion is proposed due to the page violating WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. While the death of Gorbachev is newsworthy, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and his passing is not notable enough to warrant an entire separate article. Most Wikipedia articles covering someone's death do so as a result of the death itself warranting a separate article, such as an assassination/murder, or if the death was part of or led to a major event, such as the Death and state funeral of Joseph Stalin; this death does not fall under the former, nor does it - as of now at least - fall under the latter. In addition, the article adds very little additional content to what is already included in the article on Mikhail Gorbachev. This article should therefore be deleted and content on Gorbachev's death be added to the main article on Mikhail Gorbachev instead. Willsteve2000 (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

support - his death is not worthy of an article by itself, and certainly not this quickly Plumeater2 (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if presidents of the United States are able to have pages which discuss their deaths, I don't see how Gorbachev can't. Someguy432 (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHATABOUT. — Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 17:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — If you want to point out examples, plenty of influential figures, be it Margaret Thatcher, Nelson Mandela, George H. W. Bush, Winston Churchill, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, all have pages on their death. The only difference between Gorbachev and these figures is that he doesn't have a state funeral, or a funeral at all, at least as of now, but a state funeral should not define whether or not a page is created on his death. I'm aware the political climate in Russia is very tense, especially towards Gorbachev and his policies, but I would not be surprised if Gorbachev had a funeral. A unanimous ITN nomination with the strongest support for a page I've ever seen is enough for me to say that this is something that warrants a page. I don't see the point of an AfD when there will likely be a funeral or some sort of service, and when the topic itself is growing in scale. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at this stage his death seems to be notable. Further, good points have been raised about Western-Bloc bias. Finally WP:NOTNEWS isn't intended to stop articles on current notable events and indeed encourages editors to "develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. In addition to the nominator's rationale, this is WP:ROUTINE. WP:NEVENTS lists "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths ...) ... are usually not notable", so this is pretty clear-cut to me. Unless we have conspiracy theories, some elaborate funeral, public protests, or heck, even a cause of death, there is nothing here that cannot simply be merged to Mikhail Gorbachev. Toadspike (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disagree but this in not a WP:ROUTINE event. Gorbachev's impact on the world since before and after the dissolution of the Soviet Union is incalculable. This is a huge event and many lament his passing, as demonstrated by the multiplicity of reliable sources in the reference section. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve Quinn, I agree. But there is a wider problem here: WP:ROUTINE can be applied to anything, but is used selectively.
If we applied it consistently, we'd delete vast chunks of Wikipedia.
Person elected to public office? Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually gets lots of media coverage. Yawn.
Football team wins match? Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually get lots of media coverage. Yawn.
Big company releases new product? Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually gets lots of media coverage. Yawn.
New law enacted? Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually get lots of media coverage. Yawn.
Criminal commits crime, gets convicted. Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually get lots of media coverage. Yawn.
Musician records song, gets in the charts. Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually get lots of media coverage. Yawn.
And so on. I have seen some utterly absurd uses of WP:ROUTINE, and this article is one of them. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — This is an important event in world history. Moondragon21 (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mr. Gorbachev is substantially covered. Andre🚐 02:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gorbachev death is notable if there a problem on the article we can fix it. HurricaneEdgar 03:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gorbachev is a notable person, and his funeral will likely bring many people to Russia. I also agree with the statements of ElijahPepe and SomeGuy432, that other notable leaders have whole articles about their death and funerals. It would be extremely Western-Block centric for this website to give US Presidents, the ex-wife of a British prince, British Prime Ministers, etc. their own article but omit Mr GorbachevCooluncle55 (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed If we delete Gorbechav's death, then, just add more info to the death section of Gorbechav's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:FB01:9300:556A:EE35:4A75:85FF (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is big news. 142.161.173.231 (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because an event makes the news does not automatically warrant it having an entire separate Wikipedia article, especially when coverage under another article (such as Mikhail Gorbachev) would be sufficient. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Willsteve2000 (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a source from June in the article, so WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia article is on the death of Mikhail Gorbachev; the source from June does not discuss this (as Gorbachev only just died). The source from June is therefore not an indication of the enduring notability the event, nor does it reflect on the notability of the specific event. Unless I'm missing something in the WP guidelines, WP:NOTNEWS does indeed apply. Willsteve2000 (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read other such articles - and they have sections about the person's health, and some are prior years to the event. So, the mentioned source is connected to the topic of the article, do you agree? Kirill C1 (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the source is connected to the event, but the source is not about the event. As such, the source cannot provide an indication as to how notable the specific event (his death) is, nor indicate the enduring notability of the event. While I agree that the source provides important background regarding Gorbachev’s death, the source does not make WP:NOTNEWS not apply, which was the point of my response. While similar sources have appeared in other such articles, and should appear in this one if the article is kept, the fact that this source is present does not impact the applicability of WP:NOTNEWS. Willsteve2000 (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mikhail Gorbachev. This does not need an article of its own. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 04:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I will add on. His death wasn't super eventful, but eventful enough that we can merge it and add more information into the main article. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 22:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, see WP:NOTNEWS 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 ⋅𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔⋅ 03:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with all your reasons. I understand the points about Western bias regarding articles covering deaths of Western politicians, but I also don't think those articles should be automatically added either, unless they're notable for reasons like the ones @User:Willsteve2000 said. I support already existing articles about the deaths of Western politicians being deleted if they're not notable and can just be merged with the article about the person in question, just as I do here. Stephanie921 (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His death is not suspicious nor it is notable. Those using irrelevant argument WP:OSE should know that we don't have a Death of Konstantin Chernenko article, the person who preceded Gorbachev. 43.250.158.176 (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the people who preceded Gorbachev were Dan and Frank Carney? ( this is a joke ) Stephanie921 (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Well said. 43.250.158.176 (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lmao ty :) Stephanie921 (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand the concerns about recentism and whataboutism, but Mikhail Gorbachev’s death is enormously important, his death marks the transition from the old Soviet world from living memory. The death of Gorbachev is certainly going to be an event people will want to study or learn about, an article is appropriate.R. J. Dockery (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can say that for sure @User:R. J. Dockery. People's political beliefs don't revolve around this one man, and even if it did cause metaphysical political change - which I'm not sure it will, since ur point is more about what this represents symbolically, something more suited to an opinion piece than Wikipedia even if ur right - that'd be more about political changes that happen after his death rather than his death itself. It'd be related to other political beliefs that were systemic before his death - or political beliefs opposed to those systems - which would still be about ideas rather than this one event. Anyway, I'd argue the Pizza Hut and Louis Vuitton ads he did are more representative of the Post-fall transition than this Stephanie921 (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of people alive who remember the old Soviet world. There just isn't anyone alive who was the Soviet head of state or head of the Soviet Communist Party. (There are even two people alive who served as Premier of the Soviet Union.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Metropolitan90 I don't understand what ur trying to say, could u elaborate please? Stephanie921 (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my response was meant to be directed toward R.J. Dockery, not to you. I meant that Gorbachev's death does not mean that the USSR has been lost to "living memory" (the memory of people now living). I don't disagree with what you wrote above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, thank you Stephanie921 (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are lots of pages on notable deceased people that have their own page about their death, so why shouldn't this article? AKK700 04:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - Those arguing in favor of "Keep" should read WP:ILIKEIT. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Davey2116 (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per what? There's lots of shit above, including delete !votes. ~StyyxTalk? 06:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Styyx. Asking a editor to elaborate is one thing, but I don't think that it's particularly constructive to call people's contributions 'shit'. (Re-adding this after another user deleted it) Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Tomorrow and tomorrow I think you misunderstood Styyx. I think they were using shit as a synonym to 'stuff'. I don't think Styyx was being rude. Idk ur pronouns btw Styyx so feel free to tell me and I'll correct this msg if necessary Stephanie921 (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephanie921, thank you for pointing out - reading back I realise it could also have been intended like you say. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The person being notable doesn't make the death itself notable. 61.1.20.158 (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notable person ≠ Notable death FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Since when has an encyclopedia become about deaths of particular people? If it happened in a suspicious circumstance, it would make sense. But as of right now I don't see a point. The creator should have waited to see whether this generates significant coverage for more than a single or few days. 59.94.160.4 (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge: As for now, there is nothing notable about his death, independently of what is already notable about him. If other "Death of ..." articles like this exist, I would be in favor of deleting them too. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait (i.e., keep) Although he won't get a state funeral, his funeral may be very widely covered. If that coverage is sufficiently continuous, then it passes WP:NEVENT. If it ultimately doesn't garner enough coverage the AfD can be revisited. Ovinus (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Revised 01:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — This is an important figure in modern world history. Yeungkahchun (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notable person ≠ Notable death FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I clicked on this article to get more information on his death and the reactions of different world leaders as he was a divisive figure. His main article is already really long, so I don't see why we cant keep this article and link to it in the main article in case people want to know more, which is the way its set up now. Aozeba (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you could just merge this with the main article and click on the little sidebar that says "Death"? FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article is pretty pointless. Yes, there is media attention, but it is unlikely to be lasting wrt his death. There is also very little useful content, as his death seems pretty ordinary (as opposed to eg an assassination). Who cares about the press releases of world leaders? There is no reason for what is salvageable not to be in the main article rather than here, given that there is very little of substance to say. 212.187.244.82 (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this article literally has zero use. It wasn't really a massive event that caused his death, just an illness, as compared to that of Shinzo Abe earlier this year, for example. Take a look at the length of the article at the moment, which gives one sentence about his illness and a small list of international condolences. I doubt there will be much room for expansion and if it were to be expanded, it would not be expanded much further than the information already in the Mikhail Gorbachev article. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: an important figure.--Sakiv (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notable person ≠ Notable death FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:NOTE. Any sudden reason for his death? KyleRGiggs (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No @User:KyleRGiggs The hospital said he died of a "long and prolonged illness".
So there is no any sudden reason there. Then WP:NOTE. KyleRGiggs (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge: The death isn't noteworthy enough to the point that it deserves an independent article, although the figure is important. Ddxfx (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge: There was nothing unusual about his death, be it the cause or the circumstances. Had he been assassinated, that be would be different, but he wasn't. He just died like old people do everyday. Graham Beards (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the other comments - Mikhail Gorbachev was an important historical figure with a series of articles, which should include his death. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notable person ≠ Notable death FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge: As with the above reply, the death isn't noteworthy as it wasn't done by murder. Check with other world leader's deaths such as Suharto and Chiang Kai-shek who were also leaders in around the same time which don't have a dedicated page about their death so I see no reason as to why his death warrants a page, otherwise we would have to give every ex-leader of every nation a death page regardless of how they died. -NHPluto (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if we were to keep this article separate, we would need to make it like an actual article. That's the main problem. It would be very nice if there was more in this article. This is the point of Wikipedia. Making an ACCURATE and DETAILED (if possible) free encyclopedia free of any influence, not just "so uh this person died". I hope i didn't say anything wrong with this. Itagam (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Itagam, I agree this article could be improved, however you say this is "the main problem". Just a reminder that as per WP:ARTN, article content does not determine notability. Whether or not the article is well fleshed out is not relevant to if it should be deleted. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah well, i am sorry. Itagam (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as dying of old age is not noteworthy. Al, George, Steve, etc. don't have separate death articles. Why Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush exists is beyond me. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It exists because the topic is significantly covered in reliable sources. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I'm all for a separate article to exist per WP:SUMMARY if there's enough content to justify it, but currently there's no detail in the Death article that wouldn't work in the Death section of the main article. WaggersTALK 11:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge - Maybe if his death was in some way noteworthy (i.e. it was an assasination or a rare disease etc etc.) it would make sense but it seems it was an uneventful passing. This article is a blatent example of Recentism. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The artcle has significant coverage, it can be expanded from other languages pages and be used for the blurb on main page. The size of main artilce is so big it justifies existence of standalone article. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For obvious reasons. Probably the most important statesman of the second half of last century. --TheUzbek (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing "obvious" about it. We have Mikhail Gorbachev and that's where the coverage belongs. Graham Beards (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be consensus on creating articles about deaths of influential people, see Thatcher, George H. W. Bush, Mandela, so creation of this article is not something extraordinary. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong! There is no consensus **whatsoever** that influential people are entitled to get articles about their deaths. There *is* a consensus that when there is significant information about the circumstances of the death and a major funeral, there may be enough content to justify a split of the article to cover that. That may be the case here in several days, but this article is premature and you should not spew nonsense. Reywas92Talk 20:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Reywas92 Please don't tell people things like "you should not spew nonsense". @User:Кирилл С1 wasn't intentionally trying to say a consensus that didn't exist, and they (idk ur pronouns Кирилл, feel free to tell me and I'll correct this msg if I need to) weren't even saying there was a consensus. They were just saying there seems to be one. Even if they thought a consensus existed, they could have genuinely thought that but just have made a mistake, and it's not constructive to accuse them of spewing nonsense rather than just telling them they're wrong and why. Stephanie921 (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, consensus is implied given the number of articles covering the deaths of highly notable persons. Consensus is a reasonable assumption at this point because editors have not gathered together and deleted such articles.---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mikhail Gorbachev no doubt changed the course of history for not only Russia, but the entire world. If this doesn't warrant a separate article for his death, I don't know what does. 2600:1009:B124:9728:38C9:ECA:FF9C:2557 (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per @FishandChipper, notable person ≠ notable death. No one is denying that Gorbachev was an important person, but that does not automatically warrant a separate article for his death unless the death itself was noteworthy (such as assassination, etc.). See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Willsteve2000 (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The parent article is already too long to accommodate all details about his life, so separating it into sub-articles is definitely the right way to go. Also, the numerous reactions to his death and obituaries published in reliable sources make this notable enough.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Majority of the "reactions" to his death boil down to "____ gave condolences" which isn't exactly that noteworthy. And a large majority of articles on dead people are much longer than Gorbachev's and they only have a death section too. Are you saying that every single person who dies should get an article about who was sad that they died? FishandChipper 🐟🍟 15:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think the article is shorter than other death articles, you’re encouraged to expand it with content from reliable sources (there are lots because this has been top news for almost a day). As for whether every single person who dies should get an article, yes if the death receives sufficient coverage in reliable sources as this one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What i meant is that Gorbachev's MAIN article is shorter than some others with only a death section, not this article. And also literally every single actor/musician/politician etc etc etc's death gets coverage in reliable sources nowadays so singling out Gorbachev's is pointless. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mikhail Gorbachev was one of the most important and influential figures of the last half century. His death is definitely newsworthy as he was a former head of state. Gorbachev's death marks the end of an era. As he was a former head of state, his death is just as important as Ronald Reagan's or George H.W. Bushs'. It is also worth noting that other former heads of state who did not have a state funeral have articles covering their death such as for example Helmut Kohl. Evercool1 (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article right now is short but will likely expand in length once details of his funeral are added. Blythwood (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article will be expanded over time, especially when the funeral comes in. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the article will definitely be expanded, it will need far more information than it has now to warrant an article. The Ronald Regan death article is far longer. And one of the exceptions to article about natural deaths. 61.1.22.69 (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge Gorbachev was a very important person during the Cold War and ended it, gave people rights when the Soviet Union existed, and others. Just like the articles of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, ect, these people were very important just like Gorbachev. But since there is no funeral for Gorbachev yet, then this should be merged into the main article. Otherwise, this article should still be kept until further notice. MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under the rationale that other heads of state have death pages. I would've voted for Merge otherwise. Liliana (UwU) 23:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:WHATABOUT. Just because other heads of state have death pages does not mean Gorbachev should therefore have one, especially when the content does not add much more than what is already on the main article on Gorbachev. Willsteve2000 (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My inclination is to recommend delete, because just being an important person does not necessarily mean that the person's death is important enough to cover in a separate article. We have to go by whether there is enough independently sourced content to justify a separate article. Currently two-thirds of the sources cited here are just being used to provide a (tedious, in my opinion) list of world leaders who have offered condolences. Under normal circumstances I would have expected many world leaders to show up for Gorbachev's funeral, but I suspect many of those who might have done so will skip it to avoid traveling to Russia during the war in Ukraine. I will hopefully be able to offer a specific recommendation before this AfD ends. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what's worthwhile to Mikhail Gorbachev, at least for the time being. Right now there's not really anything to justify a separate article for this. If this becomes something that receives sustained and lasting coverage this can be reconsidered. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The info available right now fits very neatly into the death box in the main Gorbachev page. There's nothing expanded on in the Gorbachev death page that couldn't easily be carried over or discarded. Until more unique/notable info is out, there's not really any need for a death page that fits easily into the main page without needing to be summarized. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 2:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:CRYSTAL prevents me from predicting what my recommendation will be when this AfD closes.[Joke] More seriously, I think any useful content could be merged to Mikhail Gorbachev (and if there is none at closure, a redirect is fine because it's a subtopic that someone might plausibly search for given Mikhail's importance). Right now, only the reactions section would be too clunky to include in the death section of the main article; I don't consider that enough to justify a separate article (per above, boils down to X expresses condolences). —Danre98(talk^contribs) 04:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as article has been improved and expanded to where merging no loger makes sense. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 08:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep without prejudice (was Merge per WP:NLIST). This article is actually a misnamed list. The title would suggest that it is an article about an event, when in reality it is a list of reactions of world leaders and governments to that event. THat is not a noteworthy list. If someone can edit the page to even suggest that this is an independently noteworthy event, I am willing to reconsider this vote. De Guerre (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are discussions on whether he gets state funeral and who of the western leaders or acquaintances will come. This is additional content and coverage that shows independent noteworthiness. Kirill C1 (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      For what it's worth, I do strongly suspect that Mr Gorbachev's funeral will be noteworthy, in part because of the geopolitical situation that is surrounding it at the moment. Many other world leaders have a "death and funeral" article. I am still not seeing any justification that Mr Gorbachev's death, specifically, is noteworthy independent of his life and legacy. At the very least, the focus and of this article should be reconsidered. De Guerre (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ur first sentence is an incredibly good point which I hadn't considered before, however I'm still not changing my vote cos we don't know if that's gonna be the case for sure. If it is then I still wouldn't think the subject of his death is noteworthy. I may - although weakly - think the subject of his funeral is noteworthy if ur predictions are true and may support retitling and restructuring this article to be about only his funeral. But then again, that depends on how much general discussion will relate his funeral to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I doubt there will be enough comparisons made to sustain an entire article, and I'm guessing the comparisons could just be limited to the section about his death and funeral on the Mikhail Gorbachev page. If I'm right that documenting the comparisons can be kept there, then I still support this article being deleted. Stephanie921 (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am changing my vote to "speedy keep without prejudice" because the title and focus of the article has changed. Active cleanup is always a valid response to an AfD. I now believe the article should stay while it is being cleaned up (WP:NLIST still applies), until at least after the funeral, at which point we can reconsider the possibility of deletion if it seems appropriate. De Guerre (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Borka gets one so must Misha. Moreover, Gorbachev's death has occured in a much more turbulent time in Russian and world history than Yeltsin's in 2007. --Spafky (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:WHATABOUT. Just because Boris Yeltsin has a death page does not mean Gorbachev should therefore have one, especially when the content does not add much more than what is already on the main article on Gorbachev. Under that logic, one could argue against Gorbachev having a death page as his predecessor, Konstantin Chernenko, does not have one, as mentioned above. As mentioned below by @Jayron32, "the only relevant thing is this article, and how Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines instruct us to deal with it." Willsteve2000 (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Without Gorbachev there would be no Yeltsin. Chernenko was an old decrepit who spent his year in theoretical power dying and missing politburo meetings, and Gorbachev was already largely running things the facto in 1984-85. Spafky (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to main article, which can adequately cover the death without requiring a distinct subarticle; the excessive list of reactions can be pared back or completely removed per WP:TRIVIA. --Jayron32 10:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    KeepSince this has opened, additional sources have come to light, indicating that this is currently sufficiently able to be developed enough to stand apart from the article it was split from. --Jayron32 12:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that the list of reactions is really WP:TRIVIA. It could maybe converted into prose, but I don't see a problem with it as long as it's reliable sourced. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The individual reactions of every country that can be found are generally not relevant to the overall narrative of a person's life. Lists of dozens and dozens of world leaders expressing sorrow is not something that generally is important in the narrative of a person's life; certainly they don't occur in any other biographies outside of Wikipedia, so they can't be terribly relevant when writing biographies anywhere else in the world. Why here? --Jayron32 11:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "The individual reactions of every country that can be found are generally not relevant to the overall narrative of a person's life" - but reactions to his death are relevant to the article about Gorbachev's death and corresponding narrative. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is just a split out from the article Mikhail Gorbachev. Per WP:SUMMARY, "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate article, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic" The list of reactions is an artificial addition to beef up this subject to make it appear to be necessary to split it off from the main Gorbachev article. If it were not so artificially added to add excessive and unneeded detail to the subject, it would fit fine at the Mikhail Gorbachev article. --Jayron32 12:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is fine. It obviously meets WP:GNG given the amount of coverage received, so it's more a question of whether it's a WP:NOPAGE case for merging into the parent. I would say no. If we're going to have Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush then it makes sense to also have one for Gorbachev, who was a very superpower influential leader and in a similar vein. Even if he doesn't get a state funeral, that's a talking point in itself given the ambivalent status the modern Russian government has towards him...  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will point out that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid rationale for anything. There can be any number of reasons why something else exists somewhere else. Maybe it's not a good analog for this article. Or maybe it shouldn't exist either; the mistakes of the past do not bind us to continue to make mistakes in the present. Or maybe there are reasons for that thing to exist that don't exist in this case. There are a near infinite number of reasons why that article does exist, and basically none of them are relevant to this article. The only relevant thing is this article, and how policy and guidelines instruct us to deal with it. --Jayron32 14:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentioning other articles is worth because it counters argument that it barely has prose - you can see from other articles perspective of growth. Some other similar articles also rebuff WP:NOTNEWS argument, having reliable sources over a long period. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That article has enough prose. This one, not yet. Not a valid comparison. Maybe this subject will reach the point will have enough to be split off from the main article, but not yet, and we cannot reliably predict the future. --Jayron32 15:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that WP:OSE isn't a universally bad argument. If stuff is designated as good articles or featured articles or some other type of award/distinction, it should be a role model.
    On the question of deleting this article, I'm neutral. I elaborated more in my reply, but the TLDR is if there's a state funeral, and if there are notable guests, or for some reason the cause of death in itself is pretty notable (like drugs or a rare cancer), keep; otherwise merge and anchor. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason why it is a bad argument is that people use it based on spurious reasons. Vanishingly close to 100% of the time it is used, it falls into one of two kinds of comparisons. Type 1) "An other article exists (links to a horrifying and obviously terrible article that has no business existing, but somehow has not yet been deleted or fixed) so we have to keep this article under discussion"; or Type 2) "An other article exists (links to an article which has some minor superficial point of commonality with the article under discussion) so we have to keep this article under discussion". Neither is a valid rationale for anything. The fact that it is possible to make a cogent OSE argument is true only in the sense that it is also possible to win the lottery: Surely it happens, but counting on it as a matter of expectation is unwise. In general, arguments should be limited to how the current article under discussion does, or does not, comply with various policies, guidelines, and other best practices. If we limited our discussions to ONLY that subject matter, we'd have far better, more productive discussions. --Jayron32 14:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral This is definitely something that should be merged in most other cases since this isn't an assassination (see the recent Assasination of Shinzo Abe as an example), but Gorbachev's death spurred numerous reactions. We have articles already on the deaths (and for some state funerals) for Nelson Mandela, Kim Il-sung, Michael Jackson, and many others.
    I would wait until a notable funeral happens, if it does happen. I would recommend modeling this article after the deaths of Nelson Mandela and Kim Il-sung. If no funeral happens though, I would merge into Gorbachev's main article and redirect this page to an anchor on such article. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one and delete all other Death of Super Important President. The death itself was not notable, he was an old man in his 90s, not assassinated by aliens or spies. Artem.G (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change title, but turn into a "death and legacy of Gorbachev" article - considering the impact he had on the world and how heavily debated his impact was (esp. in different regions), there might be enough sources and stuff worth creating an entire page of "Legacy of Mikhail Gorbachev" and merging more in-depth details about his depth would fit in better in a page like that. NHCLS (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This could definitely work as an idea, and I would back it, but I'm afraid that other editors would not be favored to this idea. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Elijah and Cooluncle55 in particular. Also, in view of polarised opinions on his legacy and in view of the current geopolitical situation, reactions to his death are worth including. As will be the list of foreign attendees to the funeral, if any are allowed to come. Aridd (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lot's of people seem to be equating the importance of the subject with notability of his death. Of course Mikhail Gorbachev was extremely influential on the history of the world in the late 20th century, but that doesn't necessarily make his death notable, and there hasn't been enough time since it happened for the event to be notable. What secondary sources (i.e. not primary news reports) have been written about this death of a 91-year-old after a long illness? And, before anyone accuses me of pro-Western bias (which is a strange accusation to make here as Gorbachev was more highly regarded in the West than anywhere else) I would support deletion of articles about the deaths of any Western politicians that don't have proper secondary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand ur "don't have proper secondary sources" point @User:Phil Bridger. Would u mind elaborating? Stephanie921 (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every reference is a primary source (i.e. a news report) of his death. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, cheers guvna! Stephanie921 (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger: a news report is not a primary source. It is a secondary source.
See WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course news reports of an event are primary sources for that event. That's History 101. In this case such reports may include secondary source material about Gorbachev himself or events surrounding his life, but the article up for deletion is Death of Mikhail Gorbachev, not Mikhail Gorbachev or Fall of Communism or Break-up of the Soviet Union. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but one needs to be a little more precise here. A news report purely of Gorbachev's death would be primary, a news report quoting people commenting on the significance of his life, detailing the effects of his policies and legacy are secondary because they are inherently analytical of his life in toto. Almost all the coverage to date has been a mixture of the two; reflections on his life as a result of his death. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not so, @Phil Bridger. A significant component of news report is secondary, reporting the various primary sources: official statements, notices, tweets, local media etc. In a case like this where the death and funeral are remote from the locations of most news media, actual on-the-ground primary reporting will be a small component of most news reports. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS @Phil Bridger: if you genuinely believe that all news reports are primary sources, then you should seek the mass-tagging of articles which use news reports as sources, and the mass deletion of articles which do not have sufficient non-primary sources.
My guess is that maybe a quarter or a half of all articles would go in that purge. It might not be a bad idea, as the clearout would lead us towards a much smaller Wikipedia based on scholarly sources ... but until that principle is broadly agreed, the case for applying it here looks highly selective. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
news reports of an event are primary sources for that event - That can sometimes be true see WP:PRIMARYNEWS for more info. Generally, a newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events. WP:INTERVIEWS also supports the idea of analysis and commentary as secondary content. Remember, the same source can be both primary and secondary, depending what is being cited. -- GreenC 05:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:BrownHairedGirl Yh, I said I think articles about the deaths and/or funerals of any politician shouldn't be automatically added, and would be in favour of the ones that already exist being deleted - unless they were notable for reasons that actually pertained to death and/or funeral, and not only the person themselves (like Willsteve2000 said). I.e. I'd be okay with keeping the article Death and state funeral of Joseph Stalin because many victims of his cult of personality who attended the funeral died in a human crush during it. Some other editors expressed support for generally deleting articles which covered unotable death and/or state funerals of politicians Stephanie921 (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephanie921: your comment might have had some credibility if you had refrained from POV commentary: cult of personality is a pejorative term applied to popular leaders who are disapproved of. (No, I am not in any way a fan of Stalin, but there were also cults of personality around e.g. Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan, de Gaulle, Gandhi).
More broadly, funerals are a moment when people sum up the life and career of the deceased. The news reports of those assessments are an important record of how the deceased was viewed at the time of their death, esp by heads of state and of government, but also by opinion writers. I see nothing in our notability guidelines to require that we assess only coverage of the actual events on the ground at the funeral. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think @Stephanie921's use of the term "cult of personality" was intended to be POV commentary or pejorative in nature, I think she was just referring to the idolization and worship of Stalin among the Soviet populace (see Joseph Stalin's cult of personality). Willsteve2000 (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yh, thanks Will. Also my pronouns are she/her :) Stephanie921 (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Updated :) Willsteve2000 (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Willsteve2000: the POV commentary is entirely irrelevant to the discussion and redundant to the substantive point which @Stephanie921 was trying to make, viz. that people were killed at the funeral. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl You're the one who mentioned it; if it's irrelevant and redundant, then why did you bring it up? Willsteve2000 (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Willsteve2000: you are demonstrably wrong.
I did not bring it up; Stephanie921 was the editor who brought it up.[30] I responded to criticise her use of POV commentary.
In future, please read before commenting. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl I did read the section, did you? You're the one who claimed that the use of the phrase "cult of personality" was POV commentary and pejorative, to which I said that it wasn't the case and was instead a reference to Joseph Stalin's cult of personality. You then replied that the POV commentary is irrelevant and redundant. But if the alleged POV commentary is irrelevant and redundant, then why would you bring it up by stating that "your comment might have had some credibility if you had refrained from POV commentary: 'cult of personality' is a pejorative term...?"
You mentioned it in your comment. You brought it up. While @Stephanie921 used the term "cult of personality," it was you who brought up it being POV commentary (which, again, I was responding that it was not), and then later said that "the POV commentary is entirely irrelevant... and redundant..." So why mention it, even to criticize it, if it's so irrelevant and redundant?
In future, please read before commenting. Willsteve2000 (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Just wow. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:BrownHairedGirl my use of 'cult of personality' wasn't POV commentary, since it has a sourced article. I think u misunderstood what cult of personality means. It's not a pejorative applied to people the user doesn't like but rather an observance of how their fans view them, which has academic use. However @User:Willsteve2000 if BrownHairedGirl wants to criticize people for inserting POV commentary - whether they were or not - then she can. I think it was a good thing she stood up for what she believed in, and using her words against her like u did when you said "please read" is rude and unconstructive Stephanie921 (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephanie921 Yeah, I guess I was just bothered when it was insinuated by @BrownHairedGirl that I didn't read the section before commenting. For the record, when I said that the alleged POV commentary was brought up, I meant that it was mentioned by the user, not that the user said the commentary in question. I did not intend for my remarks to come across as rude and unconstructive, and I apologize if they did. Willsteve2000 (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what did u mean by "death and state funeral of foo"? Stephanie921 (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"foo" is a placeholder name. Read it as "insert any name here". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yh, thank you! Stephanie921 (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge to Mikhail Gorbachev, despite his notability and influence. I don't feel that his death warrants its own article for the time being, especially given his age. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @XtraJovial: please identify the policy or guideline which stipulates that age is a criterion in notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOPAGE. There are no additional details which would require a new article. desmay (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've changed my position from neutral. I subscribe to and second BrownHairedGirl's arguments. The funeral in itself I believe will be cause for media attention due to such a prominent leader from the 21st century being denied a full state funeral. Gorbachev's funeral in itself will be unique as it has many of the elements of a state funeral but lacks a few attendees, most notably President Putin. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also suggest that everything we know and can credibly source about Gorbachev's final days be included here. I think that the article describing the final days, death, and state funeral of former Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev can serve as a good basis on how to model Gorbachev's article; it's a GA and outlines material that would prolong Gorbachev's main article. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge as per XtraJovial. 141Pr 18:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interfax reports there will be an element of state funeral in the form of honor guard which alongside Gorbachev's transformative role is sufficient for a standalone article. Brandmeistertalk 19:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there will be a state funeral doesn't mean it justifies keeping an article. I'm not opposed to an article if it has way more information than it has now. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gorbachev death news is very popular and important for now, why must be removed even though a less popular character than him has an article on his death. I think even if Putin death still have to make an article on his death even though many are hated from his country to the whole world. KenzoHarits56 (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Gorbachev's funeral has occurred. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only that. Thousands went out on the streets to pay tributes, virtually all media hold it as one of the main news today (BBC, CNN, Deutsche Welle etc.), but people here still think that his death isn’t notable at all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is arguing that "his death isn’t notable at all," nor are they arguing that his death isn't worth discussing on Wikipedia. This AfD discussion is over whether it deserves its own page. Yes, it made the news, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper; something getting a news article about it does not mean it should automatically get a Wikipedia article when the content of such an article could already be included in the main Mikhail Gorbachev article. Right now, there just isn't enough content regarding Gorbachev's death and funeral to justify having an entire separate article about it, and even now that the funeral is finished, there is still no additional information in this article that can't just be included in his main article. If this changes, then a separate article can and should be created, but as of now, a merge to the main article with a redirect left to the death section will suffice. Willsteve2000 (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a list of articles documenting deaths of other people above, so you're encouraged to start nominating articles for deletion. The fist should perhaps be this one because it's a mere list of reactions and documents the death of a person who was below Gorbachev in the Soviet political hierarchy. Alternatively, it's much better to expand this one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't do that (make lists and encourage deletions to make a point). It only takes a minute to nominate something. You asked for it you'll get it. It is disruptive and POINTY. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- GreenC 05:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreenC: Please read my last sentence before blaming me. I know very well what yoi’re talking about.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Sundostund Personally I think he's more important but I am in favour of deletion for different reasons Stephanie921 (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per other arguments. GooseTheGreat (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Noteworthy event and individual. Shouldnt even be a discussion. KingAntenor (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources such as those provided by Goldsztajn indicated his death is notable, controversial, poignant, historically symbolic. The article has not yet fully captured everything it might from those sources thus it needs more time to develop. The delete arguments it can be merged are premature. -- GreenC 05:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)—°[reply]
  • sepedy keep 2A00:1FA0:46C9:1807:0:6B:63FD:5F01 (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related discussion: WP:Articles for deletion/Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mikhail Gorbachev#Death. Much of the information here is already included there. Unlike many leaders who had state funerals, few world leaders attended Gorbachev's funeral and thus this article, unlike many of the other comparable articles, does not have a long list of attending dignitaries to include. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extensive coverage from international sources. More than enough information here to justify a split from the biographical article. And I'm not just referring to the reactions, but I also don't hate reactions sections nearly as much as some other editors do.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No clue how I managed to accidentally overwrite someone else's !vote when posting that, but I apologize. Much thanks to the admin who noticed and restored their comments.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a major event with this much coverage certainly passes WP:N. – Handoto (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Southeastern Anatolia Project. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 03:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TRT GAP

TRT GAP (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG, minimal independent sources, promotional article, not particularly notable. NytharT.C 02:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Organizations, and Turkey. NytharT.C 02:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant national TV Channel that has been broadcasting for over 30 years. Any potential promotional nature of the article is fixable, but not really a major cause of concern given that the channel is defunct. --PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To the closing admin, please disregard the vote above as nearly all (if not all) of this users' votes have been keep while providing minimal and/or unreliable sources (see their contribs). NytharT.C 16:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you done WP:BEFORE ? --PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PiccklePiclePikel: Is there a reason you vote "keep" so often? For a user who's been here for only a week, you seem to know more than regular newcomers, unless you've previously edited using an IP or something. NytharT.C 16:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably because it's easier to participate substantially in an article discussion that in your opinion is obviously notable in some way rather than the articles where you have your doubts. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If somebody who can read Turkish is able to provide proper reliable source coverage to get it over WP:GNG before this discussion closes, then keep; if they do not, then delete. Absolutely nothing that can ever be claimed about any topic ever exempts it from actually having to have sources — even an "inherently" notable claim still has to be verified by sourcing to support it. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ans Production Photography

Ans Production Photography (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)

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. No specific mentions in the listed references other than the GlobeNewswire press release. Found nothing for "Ans Production Photography" or "Ans Photography Group". Couldn't independently verify claims for "several award-winning feature-length documentaries". There's also a declined draft for the company founder Draft:Ansspvt that is sourced to sponsored/puff pieces. KH-1 (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We? Which group? HighKing++ 18:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not seeing evidence of notability. None of the sources I've looked at, save for a press release, seem to mention or credit the company at all. Pure promotion. ASUKITE 04:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Ans Production Photography is famous company based in boston mass, This company is there for many years, it been in boston news papers couple of time, they might doesnt have the much news article because this company is working the news channels. 209.6.14.186 (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asukite This is not promotional or anything, This company has been working in filmgraphy. 209.6.14.186 (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I see this article's been deleted and returned to draftspace, but the anon IP's assertion that this company is "famous" in Boston is just plain false. A Google search for "Ans Production" specified to the Boston Globe website turns up ZERO hits. A similar search specified to the Boston Herald website turns up ZERO hits. A similar search specified to the Quincy Patriot-Ledger -- Quincy being a significant center for filming these days -- website turns up ZERO hits. What "newspaper" articles are we talking about, yellowed supermarket weeklys? Ravenswing 10:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This commercial wedding photography company does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability per WP:GNG nor WP:NCORP. A BEFORE search found social media; a search under the name of the founder, Ans Ishfaq, similarly reveals social media but no significant coverage like one would expect of a notable photography firm or a notable photographer. Netherzone (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Referenced sources didn't mention the company at all or were just press releases. Article creator then added citations to spammy sites that must've been published by them. E.g. https://carlossubstain.substack.com/p/carlos was published at 21:42, 31 August 2022 and just 11 mins later added as source to the article. They broke their record later by adding a reference to a spammy piece that had existed since 4 mins only (diff: https://medium.com/@MartinCarlo/ans-production-filmography-ceb70f0b1ae7). – NJD-DE (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any sources or references that meets WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability HighKing++ 18:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that this subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia's most basic guidelines for inclusion and retention, and thus should be deleted. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the accounts who worked on this article appears to be engaging in block evasion under at least one IP. Given the potential for socking, the deleting admin may want to consider salting. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I took a closer look at the time and the IP has not edited since the other account was blocked, though behavior has been disruptive. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CamFind

CamFind (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 has not been established by WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The first four sources listed by Aoidh are sufficient to meet the GNG. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 04:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Kosack

AfDs for this article:
Wolfgang Kosack (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)

May not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines for academics. 747pilot (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabarmati University

Sabarmati University (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 don't think that this university is notable per the Wikipedia policy. There's not many sources discussing this university. 747pilot (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I see the consensus is to Keep but it would be nice to see a mention of policy supporting your opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Indeed. State-recognised universities are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.Keep- All colleges and Universities are de facto notable WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES 27.54.172.71 (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Oak University

Silver Oak University (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 article does not show why Silver Oak University is notable at all. There is not much online about it either. 747pilot (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Gujarat. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was founded in 2009 and is recognized by the University Grants Commission and is degree issuing University.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because it's recognized does not necessarily mean it's notable. There are many educational institutions that do issue degrees but are not notable. This university does not fit the criteria for notability. 747pilot (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that any well-accredited degree-issuing tertiary educational institution is presumed to be notable if it is in a Western country (if you dispute this then please give a counter-example), but not if it is in a developing country. Why is that? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's that some editors' desperate urge to delete everything they come across is likely to fail for institutions in Western countries (or English-speaking ones, at least) and even they know that. Much easier to focus on colleges in Asia and Africa where they're more likely to succeed in their dream. Sadly WP:SYSTEMIC doesn't seem to apply as much as it once did. There was a time when almost no tertiary degree-granting institution was deleted at AfD. Now, if it's in Asia or Africa it's extremely unlikely that it will be kept if it's brought to AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Comment: Well, this is interesting timing. Note the recent news coverage due to a tax investigation raid and the ensuing public reaction.[1][2][3] While this does diminish its status as a reputable institution, it IS coverage. I propose that deletion at least be postponed-- if this goes nowhere, we could redirect to some other page relating to the Income Tax division raids in August and September in Gujarat. (Income_Tax_Department#Recent_law_enforcement_actions_by_ITD, perhaps??) Gilded Snail (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Indeed. State-recognised universities are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Hindi-language television channels. Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A1 TV channel (India)

A1 TV channel (India) (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 two english sources aren't sigcov, the one Hindi source I can google translate is about the founder, not the station, and I can't find anything else. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 21:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of Hindi-language television channels: I am not finding SIGCOV. Given this has already been listed at AfD for a while, it seems unlikely that anyone will find SIGCOV soonish. Redirect, with no prejudice against an article being create iff SIGCOV is found at some point in the future. HouseBlastertalk 18:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romar Frank

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per @Ortizesp:. He is an internationally capped player with an ongoing career with some sources already. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I came to argue what exactly what Das osmnezz said. --Eranrabl (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear WP:GNG failure, articles that are essentially just sentences clearly do not provide significant coverage under any reasonable definition, and a search brought up no better sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The two sources linked above are clearly not independent SIGCOV, with the first having less than a sentence on him from what looks like a press release, and the second one is a couple quotes in another press release (from GFA). JoelleJay (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources proffered are well below requirements. Whether his career is ongoing or not is also completely irrelevant. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don’t think the two sources within the article provide significant coverage and the article fails WP:GNG. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough coverage unfortunately. I couldn't find anything substantial in a search of Grenada's newspapers. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Francois-Ravalier

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Grenada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep coverage here and here.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first article appears to be written from the school the subject attended. This means its not independent of the subject. Secondly, the second article mentions the subject once, a clear fail of GNG and SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He's player senior international football. Four caps for Grenada so the page should stay. Cam (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course plays for a Caribbean country so the new delete stasi say he must go as those players from little countries are clearly not important enough! Zanoni (talk) 10:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per @Ortizesp:, @Zanoni: and @Cazza3012:. He is an internationally capped player with an ongoing career with some sources already and one of few Grenadians ever to play in the United States and outside the Caribbean. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absolutely no evidence of a WP:GNG pass has been presented, sources cited above are literally a school newspaper and a blog. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to no significant coverage. A reminder that that's what we're looking for. Once again, we have the same non-policy-based arguments centring around depreciated guidelines. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The unusable sources offered above are reflective of the wider state of sourcing on the subject: nothing approaching SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Syrén

Pia Syrén (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:BASIC and WP:NSPORT. Avilich (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per @Dwanyewest:. Clearly significant figure in Swedish women's and international football at the time. She helped Sweden reach 3rd place in the 1989 European Competition for Women's Football and most likely has offline sources having played in the 1980s-1990s and maybe 2000s. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No one has identified any sources of SIGCOV, and global consensus rejects any arguments that playing high level football confers or indicates notability, so the keep !votes above must be discarded. JoelleJay (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not one person has been able to locate even one example of significant coverage which could count towards WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG, this takes importance over any weak presumption of notability that could be gained from the handful of squad list mentions that have been found. The keep !votes above either seem to use WP:NFOOTBALL, which has been deprecated or WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES as an argument. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a search under "Pia Syrén fotbollsspelare" brought up nothing but database listings and a passing mention in this article. Seems to fail GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Haven’t been able to find any sources that would help to provide WP:GNG, and nor has anyone else. However, if anyone finds anything, please let me know. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep with the recognition that the !votes to keep hinge on paywalled sources. If these are found not to meet the bar for GNG, a new AfD may be needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christin Lilja

Christin Lilja (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:BASIC, WP:NSPORT. Avilich (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all database sources and have no bearing on notability. Avilich (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources below which show notability. GiantSnowman 18:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There does appear to be some evidence of notability, however is it enough for wikipedia? I struggle to find decent sources myself. But nine caps and two goals at international level. There should be better sourcing around for that surely? Govvy (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per @Dwanyewest:. @GiantSnowman:, @Govvy: I found [47], [48], [49], [50], and [51]. Clearly significant figure in Swedish women's and international football at the time. She helped Sweden reach semis in the 1997 UEFA Women's Euro and most likely has offline sources having played in the 1990s-2000s. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Folkbladet - nowhere near sigcov of her. Gratistidning - a copy and paste of an article from her employer IFK Norrköping's website which makes it non-independent of her. The nt.se articles are paywalled. Can you share what they say? Last source is a podcast and is useless. Dougal18 (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed with Dougal that the sources above are not sufficient for GNG, and even if the NL articles contained SIGCOV they would count as one source and that's not enough. JoelleJay (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, while the sources in the Norrköpings Tidningar article are paywalled, we can pretty well assume from the nature of both the newspaper and the titles that they provide SIGCOV. Since this newspaper is a major regional newspaper that serves several hundred thousand people, it is most likely a reliable source, as such this individual passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Devonian Wombat I disagree, those headlines read like either transactional retirement reports or interviews, but even if they were SIGCOV they count as ONE source so she still would not pass GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article about former international footballer (helped Sweden reach the semis of a Euro) and current coach which appears to meet the GNG. The January 2011 NT article about her retirement is behind a paywall but appears likely to be SIGCOV. The July 2022 NT article about her coaching career also appears to be SIGCOV. I know that multiple articles from a "single organization or author" are usually counted as one source, but I don't think that makes much sense when the articles are from different authors, from different decades, and cover different aspects of her career (playing v. coaching). The Folkbladet article is close to SIGCOV but perhaps slightly short of it. On the balance though, I think we get there, and if it's slightly short, this is a good case for IAR (she didn't have an unimportant role in Swedish football). Jogurney (talk) 03:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think those NT articles should be considered likely to contain independent SIGCOV -- there is no way to determine whether something is a routine report, a press release, or an interview, all of which are common on NT (see this random recent article I clicked on that turned out to be a press release based on their identical captions). Folkbladet uses the exact same caption as NT for their own "Lilja's important role" article, which suggests it's a news release rather than independent reporting. If we don't even have the authors of the articles, I also don't think we should be assuming the articles are independent. JoelleJay (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Ettienne

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Grenada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep played in the Gold Cup, and I think through that tournament got enough coverage to pass GNG. And I think one of the articles surrounding his transfer to Charleston Battery offers more than routine coverage and highlights some of his info such as this and this. Tournament coverage 1, 2.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment N:FOOTBALL is ancient history. It's time to let it go. Taking part in a notable event does not confer automatic notability on the participants. Source 1 is routine coverage of a transfer. Even worse it's a copy and paste of the story from the Battery's website. The source includes info on season membership of Charleston Battery which is strange for a Grenadian website. Source 2 is from the USL which isn't independent of Ettienne. Source 3 is a live blog of a match and therefore unusable. Source 4 is a namedrop. Dougal18 (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with your premise, and your analysis. I think playing in a noteable tournament makes you noteable despite consensus.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Aren't we here to make policy-based arguments, rather than !voting based on what we personally think is notable? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So what you're saying is you're going to keep wasting everyone's time with these useless anti-consensus !votes that closers ignore just to make a point? JoelleJay (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per @Ortizesp:. He is a young pro and internationally capped player with an ongoing career with some sources already and one of few Grenadians ever to play in the United States and outside the Caribbean. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to a lack of significant coverage. I can find nothing in various sources. Daz osmnezz and Ortizesp have not made policy-based arguments for keep. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No GNG coverage has been found; the two sources offered above are an obvious press release and hype from a non-independent org. It's alarming how many delete !votes are necessary to oppose a bloc of NOTHERE tendentious editors whose !votes should just be disregarded outright. JoelleJay (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - young, international, ongoing career... irrelevant. What matters is significant coverage, which is sorely lacking. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The !votes to keep are based largely on speculation about sources that ought to exist, rather than concrete evidence of coverage. While I'm sympathetic to arguments about the difficulty of accessing these, sources presented here, the "delete"s have it. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catarina Gjellan

Catarina Gjellan (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:BASIC, WP:NSPORT. Avilich (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent from before the RfC is not helpful here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep - Per @Bring back Daz Sampson: and @Dwanyewest:. Clearly significant figure in Swedish women's and international football at the time. She helped Sweden win the 1984 Women's Euro, their first ever major trophy, helped her club team Gideonsbergs IF win their only league title in 1992 and was nominated for the Medelpads Fotbollförbund's best ever player, and most likely has offline sources having played in the 1980s-1990s. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No one has identified a source of SIGCOV, which is required by our notability guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails GNG, no SIGCOV. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for not passing any basic notability standard. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no evidence that the article will pass WP:GNG based on online English and Swedish-language sources. Unlike her teammate Pia Sundhage, it appears that Gjellan wasn't a notable member of the Euro winning side. Jogurney (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Salmon Falls (Snake River). Participation is very low but among those who contributed there seems to be a general consensus - albeit more of a reluctant acceptance of a compromise than a wholehearted endorsement - to merge into a Salmon Falls article with a larger scope. WaggersTALK 09:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Salmon Falls

Upper Salmon Falls (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)

Same rationale as Lower Salmon Falls, No assertion of notability, can't find any in my BEFORE. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - participation is low here. I would agree to a merge to gain consensus but the suggested merge target does not exist. Salmon Falls (Snake River) does exist though, which would be an ideal merge target - except that I cannot see anything in the article to merge. There is just nothing here that is not already there. I also note that Lower Salmon Falls was previously nominated and is supposedly waiting for merge into Lower Salmon Falls Dam. I suggest this article just be redirected to Salmon Falls (Snake River). This will leave (after the above merge is complete) just two articles - one on the falls and one on the dam. This seems like a sensible solution to me as both dam and falls will meet notability guidelines, although both articles could do with a lot of work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist. Please consider the redirect option in the comment above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Tanha Tanha

Dil Tanha Tanha (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 in the given sources—[4] totally befuddles me—and I couldn't find anything on Google, querying for the film name along with the director and a few of the main actors. Ovinus (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is drama not a film and an average Pakistani drama gets that much coverage mostly. The reference [4] has a passing mention of drama and actor starring, I found a similar source with a passing mention as well [55]. Other sources about the drama I found on Google are of drama aggregating sites and forums which may not be reliable except for this one from review it.pk. So having telecasted on a popular drama channel Hum TV with considerable views it is notable in my opinion. Muneebll (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source I just found of Arab News Pakistan about this drama serial which gives some details. [56] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muneebll (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; The show aired on a notable network having notable cast and have sources from international sites as well. The article is notable enough to stay on Wikipedia. Lillyput4455 (talk) 15:12, 03 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is well referenced article from reliable sources. It passes the notability standard. Vicozico13 (talk) 06:17, 05 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles C. Awuzie

Charles C. Awuzie (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)

Promotional article by probably connected contributor. Existing sources are largely non-reliable and do not demonstrate notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "7 રાજ્યોમાં 100 સ્થળે ITના દરોડા:પોલિટિકલ ફન્ડિંગ મામલે કાર્યવાહી, રાજસ્થાનમાં ગેહલોત સરકારના મંત્રી રાજેન્દ્ર યાદવને ત્યાં પણ રેડ" [Red Of IT At Silver Oak University In Ahmedabad, With A Number Of Admissions, Transactions Are Likely To Have Increased.]. Divya Bhaskar (in Gujarati). Ahmedabad. 7 September 2022. Retrieved 7 September 2022.
  2. ^ "Day In Pics: September 7, 2022". Outlook India. 7 September 2022. Retrieved 7 September 2022.
  3. ^ "IT વિભાગનો સપાટો / અમદાવાદની સિલ્વર ઑક યુનિ.માં ત્રાટકી IT વિભાગની ટીમ, કૉલેજને યુનિવર્સિટીની માન્યતા મળ્યા બાદ કૌભાંડની શંકા" [Team of IT department raided at Ahmedabad's Silver Oak University Suspects scam after college gets university recognition]. VTV-Gujarati (in Gujarati). 7 September 2022. Retrieved 7 September 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_August_31&oldid=1107723967"