Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 09	October 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Senators of the 39th Canadian Parliament and same-sex marriage

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

The Civil Marriage Act was passed in the 38th parliament in 2005. This is an WP:OR attempt to predict how the senators of the 39th parliament would have voted in 2006, given the changes in membership between one year and the next. (There is a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senators of the 38th Canadian Parliament and same-sex marriage.) gnu 57 22:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be all OR. --Enos733 (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speculative OR. The situation is that after Stephen Harper's Conservative Party won the 2006 election, there was speculation that they might try to overturn SSM — so this is basically an attempt to predict how such a vote might land once it got to the Senate. But the thing is that it didn't happen, meaning this page serves no enduring value. Bearcat (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTN criteria not met. Lightburst (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not some sort of backwards WP:CRYSTAL ball to imagine how things might have been if they weren't the way they are. Jacona (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: entirely OR, highly speculative, generally very much WP:NOT. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian Attacks during Russo-Georgian War

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

CFORK of Russo-Georgian War. Not the first article created by this new editor that is of low-quality and with problematic nationalistic overtones; additional scrutiny may be needed. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Georgia (country). Walt Yoder (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. I can't even understand half of the things in the article. This article is nonsense, terrible grammar, and like what the nom said, it's just a CFORK of the Russo-Georgian War. Also, the entire article is critical of Georgia.

The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 12:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the Owner of the Article. Since I am new to this Wikipedia Page, I am Trying to Make it More better. I am really, AND. This article is Part Of Russo-Georgian War So count it as "CFORK" if u want to. Imakewikipedianpages (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Imakewikipedianpages,

No one, not the article creator nor the chief contributor, "owns" a Wikipedia article. You can see this in this AFD where the community comes to gether to evaluate whether it should be Kept, Deleted, Redirected, Merged or Draftify. Decisions here are made by consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me that I guess Imakewikipedianpages (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think we can count the article creator's comment as a "Keep" so Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the time being. This is the work of a new editor trying to do it right. We were all new once. And the situation itself is in constant evolving. We should let this new editor get his stuff together and finish it. It can be tidied up afterwards. — Maile (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is the situation "constantly evolving"? We're talking about things that happened more than 15 years ago. FOARP (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete - This is a plain and simple POVFORK of Russo-Georgian War. You cannot just divide a war into the "attacks" of one side absent any support in reliable, secondary sources for that division, which there simply isn't one here. A war between two sides consists of both sides shooting at each other. FOARP (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as content fork. Srnec (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Masood

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

I came here via a blocked promotional sock account which also edited this one. The article was PRODded before, by User:Onel5969. The BLP is at best a BLP1E, and even that is sketchy because there just is no reliable secondary sourcing to support a claim to notability. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Individual is quite notable. Keep this page up... Ah507 (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable source available to claim that the subject is notable, Just a YouTuber. He has some coverage after the tongue-controversy with another YouTuber Muhammad Ali Mirza and about other religion. The subject having no proof of being a lecturer at the seminary. He is just known for having 4 wives, and not notable, thus agrees with the Nominator. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that he is primarily known as a YouTuber, we cannot disregard the impact and influence he has had within the online religious discourse. His notable controversies and debates with figures like Muhammad Ali Mirza have garnered significant attention and discussion within the relevant communities. Ainty Painty (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ainty Painty He has no influence in my view, and if he is an influencer then also, he is not passing the notability criteria. Some websites covered the mouth-fight of Mirza and Masood, this cannot make an individual notable. I really recognize your contributions, but he isn't notable. Thanks Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a shred of notability. Created for promotional purpose. Fails WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agrees with the Nominators view and comment, also at first glance it seems more promotional content. and failed in WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjoegoldberg (talk • contribs)
Comment @Maliner and @Mrjoegoldberg The criticism of being a "promotional" page should be addressed with improvements in the article's neutrality, rather than outright deletion. Mufti Tariq Masood's work has been influential in shaping discussions on religion and theology in the digital era. Ainty Painty (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SGUL Teddy Bear Hospital

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and organization-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Medicine, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With a quick check in ProQuest, I see some coverage of similarly named programs in Ireland[2] and Canada[3][4], Australia[5], Singapore [6], etc.

I wonder if this is a more general concept? If a concept, will surely meet WP:GNG but of course would need to be at Teddy bear hospital or Teddy Bear Hospital —siro χ o 19:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sapporo Omoide in My Head Jōtai

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

Ffails GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums. BEFORE showed nothing, link in article is to database. // Timothy :: talk 20:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This album charted at #20 nationally and was on the charts for 6 weeks, per Oricon, therefore making it likely to meet WP:NALBUM. I have not tried to find separate coverage online (and for this period in Japan most relevant sources are on paper), but at worst this should be redirected to the artist, Number Girl. Dekimasuよ! 01:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM per evidence provided above by Dekimasu.4meter4 (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hook, Line and Sinker (TV program)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV, with a complete lack of references. The PROD that I proposed, was removed by @Necrothesp, who said that deletion of a programme that's run for 22 seasons is hardly uncontroversial. I hope that someone adds additional references about Hook, Line and Sinker to the article. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 20:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 20:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Water, Rob Black Agnes (2009-04-24). "TV hosts fall for 1770 reefs". The Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-10-07. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
  The article notes: "Popular television co-hosts Nick Duigan and Andrew Hart fell for the Town of 1770 and its offshore reefs, as their TV show suggests; Hook, Line and Sinker. ... Hook, Line and Sinker has become one of Australia's most popular fishing shows, with a bit of lifestyle and cooking mixed in with an irreverent blend of humour setting it apart from some of the more traditional programs. What comes through in the series is the boys love of fishing and all things boating, with a couple of twists that include; beefing up an old Bertram (boat) with a huge new 350hp outboard, catching fish using a remote controlled model boat, using Andrew as a live lure as he water skis behind the boat and entering an all-female fishing contest dressed in drag - until organisers twigged and they were booted out."
2. "Hooked in the Whitsundays: A crew from one of Australia's most popular fishing television shows 'Hook, Line and Sinker' recently filmed in the region". The Courier-Mail. 2014-09-07. Archived from the original on 2023-10-07. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
  The article notes: "A crew from one of Australia's most popular fishing television shows 'Hook, Line and Sinker' recently filmed in the region. Nick Duigan and Andrew Hart spent several nights on the outer reef with Sea Fever Sportsfishing's Ashley Matthews, and were able to capture footage for an entire episode. The boys caught fish jigging, on poppers and even dived in to grab crayfish."
3. Ellerton, Phillip (2007-12-20). "New Gear". The Mercury. Archived from the original on 2023-10-07. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
  The article notes: "Although some purists may not enjoy the Hook, Line and Sinker DVDs, they offer a fresh, exciting and often humorous approach to fishing."
4. Martin, Hannah (2012-03-04). "Tassie fishing show hooks big deal". Sunday Tasmanian. Archived from the original on 2023-10-07. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
  The article notes: "One of Tasmania's longest- running television programs has cracked the big time. Fishing series Hook, Line and Sinker has snagged a coveted television slot, with the show soon to be aired in national metropolitan areas. The move to 7mate this year is expected to double audience numbers to 600,000 a week for local fishermen Nick Duigan, 41, and Andrew Hart, 31. The milestone comes as the show prepares to film episodes for its 10th season."
5. "Backs to the wind works wonders as inland anglers score lion's share of luck". The Canberra Times. 2006-04-21. Archived from the original on 2023-10-07. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
  The article notes: "Keep your eyes peeled for a new fishing show, Hook Line and Sinker, running for the next 11 weeks at 6pm Saturdays on Southern Cross Ten. Described as A River Somewhere meets Russell Coight, it features two larrikin anglers, Nick Duigan and Andrew Hart, roaming Australia chasing fish. The first episode, shown last week, promises some great fun."
6. Wade, Rohan (2004-12-18). "Reeling them in". The Mercury. ProQuest 353181196.
  The article notes: " Andrew Hart and Nick Duigan, who not only present but conceived the Tasmanian television fishing program Hook, Line and Sinker, are about to embark on their third full season of a combination of fishing adventures and fishing misadventures. While not always madcap, the antics of Hart and Duigan are often more about good humour than good fishing, but it is a style that is winning over viewers as an alternative to the super-slick, highly produced interstate fishing shows that produce a steady stream of fish. Catching a fish for the Hook, Line and Sinker crew, while always the aim, sometimes doesn't happen. ... It is a recipe that has helped the show go from strength to strength since Hart and Duigan filmed two pilot shows in 2001."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hook, Line and Sinker to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An assessment on these recently unearthed sources would be a welcome addition to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am pinging @Happily888, in order to leave his opinion on this discussion. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 07:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Great job by Cunard, not just here presenting sources that show the subject clearly passes the GNG, but also in their expansion of the article. Jenks24 (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 00:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpchi E8

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

In WP:BEFORE I have been unable to find much in the way of WP:RS covering this to confer notability onto the car. There appear to be some youtube videos on it, but almost no articles on it. It's very possible there's a number of them I am missing given Trumpchi is a Chinese company and some of the coverage might not be in English, but from what I could find it was sparse enough for me that I didn't think it passed WP:GNG. TartarTorte 20:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - seems a little premature. - Indefensible (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - once released, I am sure there will be coverage. Mr.choppers | ✎ 14:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per the above comments. Note that the Chinese Wikipedia does not yet have an article about this car - that's not a requirement for inclusion here, but it is telling.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein–Ukraine relations

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

I count one source in this article which isn't 100% actually about Russia–Ukraine relations, a topic on which Liechtenstein is 100% aligned with it's much larger neighbours. This is a WP:COATRACK article for things already said much better elsewhere. PROD removed by creator without improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Once again, as I stated on Talk:Liechtenstein–Ukraine relations I don't agree that either of your points that justify any kind of deletion are true. As far as I know, many of the things on this page are either not available elsewhere or covered with bare minimum facts which strongly justify it's own page. With that in mind, I fail to see how this meets WP:COATRACK criteria. Furthermore, the notion that only one source isn't completely about Russia–Ukraine relations is rather bogus, since all relevant sources there play into Liechtenstein's reaction and involvement with Ukraine. Several others just cover their relationship in general, as minimal as it may be. I can't be improve a page if you don't give any elaborate suggestion I'm afraid.TheBritinator (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Also agree this is not a coatrack article. Even though the topic isn't significantly large, it's valuable enough to keep centralised and has reasonable coverage. -- Primium (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article covering a valid subject. - Indefensible (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A valid subject does not necessarily mean notable. LibStar (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Once SPA input is properly discounted (and given that the SPAs apparently do not understand what constitutes reliable and in-depth coverage for purposes of determining notability), there is a clear consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 15:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State of Reason

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

Non-notable book. No (zero) independent sources and apparently available only on Kindle. The article creator and main contributor appears to have a COI as well. RegentsPark (comment) 21:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Article lists three independent sources.

Three of the books in the series are available in paperback. One of the books is also being sold by Barnes and Noble.

The Article is linked to by two other Articles. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the books listed in the Article are also listed on Google Books. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend KEEP. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this editor has tried to add a mention of this book to the George Washington Bridge article without any reliable secondary sources, then called a removal of this content "vandalism". The fact that I couldn't find any secondary coverage of this book at all, while trying to find a source for this addition, is concerning. Epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this editor deleted multiple segments of the Article en-mass simultaneously of discrete instances of In Culture which were referenced. Explanation given by editor was only "remove cruft". 68.2.61.80 (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I retained everything that did have a reference; the only other paragraph that I removed was not referenced, either (it only contains a inline external link). The point is, I was trying to find a secondary source to justify retaining the mention of Loss of Reason in the GWB article but was unable to do so. In fact, I can't find any secondary sources for this book anywhere (a Google search only uncovers unrelated things which use that exact phrase). – Epicgenius (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5 secondary sources for books in the State Of Reason series (including the first book in the series "Loss Of Reason"), listed right at the bottom of the Wikipedia page. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I did find this source: [7], but that might be a WP:SPS and I don't know if the author counts as a subject-matter expert. All other sources found were either not independent or were trying to sell me the ebook or a print copy. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking the "Find Sources / Google / Books" link above (https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22State+of+Reason%22) brings up a list of books. Contained within this list, at number 9, is the first book in the series, "Loss Of Reason". 68.2.61.80 (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link it turned up: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Loss_of_Reason/G-0YswEACAAJ?hl=en

This Google Books link is independent and offers nothing for sale.

The entire series including links to all 7 books in the series can be found here: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=inauthor:%22Miles+A.+Maxwell%22&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2mO3J5OyBAxWTOTQIHQgVCg8QmxMoAHoECB8QAg

The web pages linked to are independent and offer nothing for sale, but some do offer previews of the books. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Clicking the "Find Sources / Google / Books" link ABOVE (https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22State+of+Reason%22+-wikipedia) brings up a list of books. Contained within this list, at number 9, is the first book in the series, "Loss Of Reason". This is the link that turned up: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Loss_of_Reason/G-0YswEACAAJ?hl=en

This Google Books link is independent and offers nothing for sale.

The entire series including links to all 7 books in the series can be found here: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=inauthor:%22Miles+A.+Maxwell%22&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2mO3J5OyBAxWTOTQIHQgVCg8QmxMoAHoECB8QAg

The web pages linked to are independent and offer nothing for sale, but some do offer previews of the books. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC) 68.2.61.80 (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Notability (books), the book needs to be the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Mere inclusion in a list of books is insufficient (see note 1 on the page linked above). Please also review our conflict of interest guidelines. RegentsPark (comment) 02:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the table below. I couldn't find any better sources.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Good Reads	interview	WP:GOODREADS	✘ No
Good Reads 2		WP:GOODREADS	✘ No
Google Books 1		? Google collects information from many sources. Including WP:SPS and Wikipedia itself. No way of knowing.	✘ No
Google Books 2		? Google collects information from many sources. Including WP:SPS and Wikipedia itself. No way of knowing.	✘ No
Pirate Patty			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

-- Mike 🗩 16:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis is Pirate Patty consider "not reliable"? 68.2.61.80 (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the WorldCat cite above to your table. Pomgrom (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Patty is a blog and is thus not acceptable as a reliable source.

WorldCat is a repository of bibliographic data. It is reliable for verifying certain data about a book but does not provide significant coverage about books by itself. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. WorldCat includes the number of libraries, their names, and locations that hold various editions of a book in their collections. It also includes individual reviews. WorldCat is even listed as an acceptable reliable source by Wikipedia. Pomgrom (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pomgrom, your worldcat source and almost all other sources listed merely confirm the existence of this book or series. You need to show evidence of notability and, unfortunately, there is zero evidence for that. RegentsPark (comment) 16:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Patty is a WP:BLOG. Blogs CAN be reliable, but it's a high standard. Read WP:BLOG, Pirate Patty would not qualify. -- Mike 🗩 13:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the table below. Two sources that meet General Notability Guidelines required. Six that meet GNG listed.Note: Cite #4 WorldCat (https://www.worldcat.org/title/929458752) displays a catalog of the series including the first book in the series "Loss Of Reason" which is available in paper and ebook, held in 39 library collections, and lists 109 reviews. Pomgrom (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Pomgrom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Good Reads	interview	WP:GOODREADS	✘ No
Good Reads 2		WP:GOODREADS BUT with 1700 ratings and more than 200 reviews. Counting Amazon and Google Books, nearly 10,000 reviews and ratings worldwide.	✘ No
Google Books 1		Google Link at top of this article is offered by deletion initiating editor as GNG source of Wiki reference cites. With Wiki limitation removed and searching under individual names of books in series many source instances are returned.	✔ Yes
Google Books 2		Google Link at top of this article is offered by deletion initiating editor as GNG source of Wiki reference cites. With Wiki limitation removed and searching under individual names of books in series many source instances are returned.	✔ Yes
Pirate Patty		Highly respected industry site published for many years containing thousands of reviews	✔ Yes
WorldCat			✔ Yes
Jane V Blanchard Reviews			✔ Yes
NetGalley Reviews		Independent Industry Standard Reviews	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Two things that I think is wrong with your table. Firstly, you have two WP:BLOGS listed as reliable (they're not). Second, WorldCat is a database, it isn't significant coverage. Think "paragraphs" when determining WP:SIGCOV. Also, are you the same editor as they IP editor above? -- Mike 🗩 14:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose your motivation, "Darth Mike" for attempting to remove this series Wikipedia page. You seem to have a hidden agenda. Denying coverage of WorldCat's many library collections of holding these books as significant coverage. Calling professional reviewers "blogs." Please disclose your personal motivation trying so hard. Don't you work? Pomgrom (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could say the same. Please disclose your motivation, "Pomgrom" for attempting to keep this series Wikipedia page. You seem to have a hidden agenda. Thinking that coverage of WorldCat's many library collections of holding these books as significant coverage. Calling blogs "professional reviewers." Please disclose your personal motivation trying so hard. I won't ask whether or not you work, as it is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Also, I have stricken again your duplicate keep !vote. You have already !voted, you can't !vote again. Also, learn what vandalism is before accusing me. If you suspect me of vandalism, feel free to report me to WP:AIV and if you suspect me of having ulterior motives, report me to WP:COIN. -- Mike 🗩 13:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strikethrough vote no longer necessary - have combined "vote" and comments with table.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomgrom (talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the many libraries that carry books in the series, the large number of reviews, and the NetGalley review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winter Snow Energy (talk • contribs) 00:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC) — Winter Snow Energy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
NetGalley would not make something notable. Per their own about page and how it works, they just give copies of books to member to review. The review you linked to by Kim C., just states that Kim is an educator. For a review to be meaningful, it must come from a reliable source. -- Mike 🗩 14:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Closer: All keep !votes have come from single-purpose accounts who have had very little to no activity outside of this one topic. -- Mike 🗩 14:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK per the sources discussed here. No plausible merge/redirect target. Suriname0 (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike . . . Member of the band Loss Of Reason? Pomgrom (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find reliable reviews about the book in my searches for sources. I do not consider Pirate Patty, a blog, to be a reliable source. The book meets neither Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline nor Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remember Closer, GNG are just guidelines, the application of which much is based on opinion and preference. Not hard and fast rules, otherwise more than 20% of the text on Wikipedia would not exist.

Flexibility is important too, taking in the scope and feel and trend.

For example, all the books in this series are listed in "GoogleBooks In Author," here: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=inauthor:%22Miles+A.+Maxwell%22&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2mO3J5OyBAxWTOTQIHQgVCg8QmxMoAHoECB8QAg , but no one has yet included this web address as a cite. A common type of problem with Wikipedia. Pomgrom (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey User:Pomgrom, no need to worry about a specific citation being present in the article; the assessment that other discussion participants make (and that the closer should use as well) is based on the sources both cited on the page and raised here in this discussion. Relevant citations can always be added to the article later. Suriname0 (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"'Strong Keep"' I'm just reading through some of these comments and find them to be out of character for individuals who would truly be concerned about an author's work. But I'm just a reader. All I know is that I have found that I can find almost every one of this series of books in my small local library system in Texas, and that says a lot.

LEESE6388 (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC) — LEESE6388 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete . Fairly obvious, fails GNG. I couldn’t find it in the Bodleian, so I kind of doubt above SPA’s claim even if it was at all relevant to notability. Not much else I can say. Has a notice been made on WP:COIN yet? Fermiboson (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Yinglan

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

Non-notable businessman. Blatant self-promo, no sign of independent sigcov. Jdcooper (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is currently written as a professional profile, but there is a bit of coverage in New Straits Times [8][9]. —siro χ o 21:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to include more sources and independent coverage, open to suggestions on other sources to include. Paujoqs97 (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-19/singapore-s-insignia-ventures-intensifies-push-into-healthtech, https://www.ft.com/content/8c484648-f4b7-11e9-a79c-bc9acae3b654, https://www.reuters.com/technology/insignia-ventures-raises-516-mln-bets-southeast-asian-tech-firms-2022-08-01/, https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/13/insignia-venture-partners-fund-25-million-yinglan-tan/, but needs clean up and maybe just reduce it to a stub to remove WP:COI and WP:PROMO. - Indefensible (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
marked as a stub Paujoqs97 (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: resume style promo BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. The refs above, like the refs in the article fail WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. The refs listed above are as good as it gets and none of them have SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 23:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Right now, I see no reliable sources that he is actually a billionaire, and as we know from DJT, it's easy to inflate the value of one's assets. If he is actually a billionaire, there would be better sources. Tagging DGG for input. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move and redirect‎ , which I will do manually. Please tweak if needed Star Mississippi 00:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Na Górze

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

A mass-created article created by Kotbot, a deactivated bot.

The name means literally "at the top". From the map it appears to be a farm in the village of Gliśno Wielkie. Notably the GMaps address given for this location is in that village. The only source given in the article is the TERYT database, but I could not locate an entry for this.

Searching this Polish postal directory I also could not find an entry for this place in Lipnica, Bytów. This 2015 law on Polish place names (1500+ pages long) describes it as "Part of Gliśno Wielkie" (część wsi Gliśno Wielkie), not as a settlement (osada), so the article is inaccurate.

Exactly none of these sources describes this place as ever having been a populated settlement, as such it fails WP:GEOLAND. Merging to Gliśno Wielkie is meaningless as no information is included in the article to merge. Redirecting the Polish phrase for "at the top" to a random village in rural Poland makes no sense. That leaves deletion. FOARP (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "Redirecting the Polish phrase for "at the top" to a random village in rural Poland makes no sense"? That's the name of the place and it's part of the village. In English such a phrase could be a "random" song or album. There are other places so disambiguation would be more useful. Peter James (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Peter, there are 15 different locations with the same name listed on PL Wiki, a film, and a rock-band - why would anyone be looking for this? Not even address of the location is listed as being Na Górze - though the postal directory lists a (similarly non-notable) address in Rybnik. This title falls into at least two classes of un-needed redirect:
  - 1) The title is a Polish-language adjective ("topmost"/"top") with no actual affinity to the subject. See WP:AFFINITY.
    2) The title is WP:UNHELPFUL since it raises unrealistic expectations - we do not redirect every named location and building in a village to the village. FOARP (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Settlements in a parish are typically redirected to the parish if there is not enough content for a separate article. WP:AFFINITY would only be a reason not to redirect it to an article with no connection to the language or add an article with no connection to that language to a disambiguation page. Whether a place is in a postal directory are not always relevant - in the UK some villages and large suburbs can be missing entirely and a small village can be included three times. Peter James (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn’t a settlement, though - that would be listed as an osada. This is simply a place-name, one that is essentially an adjective. FOARP (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move then Redirect. Per pl wiki and TERYT, this is just part of a village. I don't see how this has a stand-alone notability. Will start pl wiki AFD soon. PS. First, move this to Na Górze (Gliśno Wielkie), per pl wiki. Note that per pl wiki and TERYT, there is a dozen or so different villages have identically named "parts". The current name should be a disambig like pl:Na Górze. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move then redirect per Piotrus.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The delete arguments appear to accurately characterize the sources as not contributing to notability. The responses simply assert otherwise. If the assertions came from editors with reputations for solid source analysis, I might think twice, but that's clearly not the case here. RL0919 (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nation Chakma

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Press falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and looks like a recent press campaign given that most are dated around the same timeframe. CNMall41 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a recently created article with linkspam references and no clear claim of notability. Unless the article creator can demonstrate better sourcing (per WP:THREE), this should be deleted. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 117.209.102.31 (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Page quality or poor edits are irrelevant in the discussion. The subject is a Indian Actor who had represented his country and state ito the national stage. Keep per 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, and 7.Andarredot (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC) — Andarredot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Yes I agree, I made few or no other edits outside this topic, doesn't mean this page reference is false. it's my opinion only. Andarredot (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability.Ven.kalyandutbhante (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC) — Ven.kalyandutbhante (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The only sources are either WP:UGC or pretty clearly paid promotion (all in very broken English), one of which that even had a date on it was dated after this AFD started; what a coinkydink! 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly a promotional piece. The nominator hits the nail on the head.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. I found 1 among many many other English and Bengali sources . Clearly significant figure in Indian actor and Enterpreneur with ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks.27.56.30.252 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Another reference published since this AfD was started. This fails WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That source was already added to the article three days ago. And it certainly wasn't written by a professional reporter. What professional reporter begins half the paragraphs in an article with the subject's full name? It's a PR piece. Largoplazo (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the seven numbered sources given above by a Keep !voter,
- 1 is clearly advertising.
- 2 is an IMDb page, user-generated, database-driven content.
- 3 reads as a PR piece channeling what Chakma wants it to say, and it was apparently not written by a professional writer of English, so unlikely to be a real reporter.
- 4 is database-driven content that says almost nothing.
- 5 reads as a PR piece, and it was apparently not written by a professional writer of English, so unlikely to be a real reporter.
- 6 is so badly written, clearly not a third-party reporting piece. "Nation Chakma is an Indian Actor conceived on March 09, 1996"? "He is the primary tyke from his family who acquired Chakma Actor, Entertainer as his profession."? "He is a skilled and influenced person. He fathoms he needs to put in exceptional exhibits multi-day in day out, and that is what he surpasses desires at."? This is all public relations.
- 6 (#2) links to another Wikipedia article.
- 7 is a database-generated listing that gives his name followed by links to some film trailers but no information.

Largoplazo (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources106.221.118.125 (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jitesh Singh Deo

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

Another AfD pointed this particular individual out; while the Mr. India winner could be notable, but there is no sourcing to help. The Indian Express article is PR, unsure of the second one. I can't find mention of this person in reliable sourcing (to be fair, it is the typical flowery language we've seen in umpteen articles here, but it does not seem to help in this case). Gsearch goes straight to social media, this wiki article, then youtube and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The coverage on the page and most of what I am finding fails WP:NEWSORGINDIA and there is nothing outside of the 2017 pageant that could be considered significant. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Beauty pageants, Fashion, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There has been minimal participation, but the most convincing arguments are for retention and clean up of the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sangramsingh Thakur

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Non-notable roles including an "electrician" in a web series. Other references are just credits, mentions, or fail WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not done any lead role in films ... all roles are supporting/recurring roles , not passing WP:NACTOR Criteria till now . thank you Worldiswide (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a note that the page was moved to draft space for just over 3 days. I've restored it to main space, as articles should not be draftified during a deletion discussion. I'm quite surprised nobody noticed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh:, Thanks for moving back. I did notice and notified the admin who was involved in the discussion on the talk page of the article but looks like they have not been editing in a few days. Appreciate you taking care of this as I wasn't sure if a simple move would have restored everything. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @CNMall41 & @Hey man im josh, I'm travelling, forgot to put up a notification! Valereee (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee:, no big deal. I didn't ping anyone else as I figured it wasn't life or death. Cheers!--CNMall41 (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More participation would be welcome here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable. The Nagpur Today refs look like reliable, significant coverage. The xpresstimes.in ref is pay-to-play. Others refs seem independent and reliable but are either too short to establish notability or just passing mentions. Nagpur is a city the size of Brussels but Sangramsingh Thakur is still a Nagpur "hometown boy". It's reasonable that Nagpur Today would cover him in-depth when out-of-town media give more limited attention. This gives us enough to write a reliable article about Thakur and reliability is the ultimate motivation behind our notability guidelines.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability cannot be established by articles in one publication. The references in The Nagpur Today also fall under the same principles as WP:RSNOI as they do not appear to be written by staff writers. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, here's what the notability guideline says:

"…a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source."^{(Notability#Notes, footnote 4)}

My interpretation is that "a series of publications" does not refer to 2 or more unconnected articles. I think footnote 4 refers to serialized content (for example, a 3-day, 3-part series on a given topic). In that case, that footnote does not apply to this subject.

Over the course of 100s of AfDs^[10][11], I've never seen this footnote invoked before until this and another AfD today. That makes me think this is a narrow rule, otherwise, we'd be tossing out articles just because a subject's multiple references are only to New York Times articles or only to Economist articles.

As for WP:RSNOI, that guidance does not rule out using articles without bylines; it suggests that lack of a byline may be an indication of paid, promotional content. When I read the Nagpur Today articles, they did not appear to be paid content.

It'll be interesting to read how others view these 2 issues.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. What I am saying is if a single publication is the only one running stories that would count towards notability, we shouldn't just keep a page based on that. If the person is worthy of notice, they would receive coverage elsewhere as well. As far as RSNOI, you are correct that it does not rule out articles without bylines. It does however state "exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability." We have to look at each reference individually. Outside of The Nagpur Today, the references that talk in-depth about the subject are Outlook India with a byline of IANS which is a "guest post" and has no editorial oversight (I would consider this akin to WP:FORBESCON) and Xpress Times which is clearly marked as "brandspot" at the top with the byline of "Express Times Team" indicating churnalism. The others are mentions and bios. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with A.B.'s comments above and, given the coverage the actor has received, think the page could be retained.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just using one example, would agree that this source counts towards notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:NACTOR and WP:NEWSORGINDIA.

बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kiedrowice. RL0919 (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiedrowice (hamlet)

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

This was prodded by Edward-Woodrow but de-prodded by Espresso Addict.

The location for this "hamlet" given in the article is the local forestry office for the village of Kiedrowice (see here), the centre of which is located a short distance away and for which we already have an article.

As such this article is self-evidently just a duplication.

Looking at the 2012 location-names law, this lists a "forest settlement" (osada leśna) called Kiedrowice in Lipnica as well as a "village" (wieś) with the same name also in Lipnica - there is no reason given here not to believe these are not exactly the same thing, included as a clerical artefact in this 1500+ page long document. The relevant content of the 2015 law is identical. The 1746-page-long postal directory lists two addresses called "Kiedrowice" - Kiedrowice and Kiedrowice (Karcz) (i.e., remnant, or "stub", though there does appear to be another hamlet called Karcz in the general area with a different PNA), evidently the same location as they have the same PNA. None of these have any data giving the actual location of these places (which begs the question of where the location in the article comes from), nor their population.

A WP:BEFORE search is meaningless as results are found for the village. The Polish article is identical except that it identifies it as a "forest settlement".

Normally it would be reasonable to propose merging, but there is nothing to merge here since the details are essentially the same (same post-code, some other details).

This is what happens when articles are generated at speed from sources that do no more than list names in a geographical hierarchy - the creator spent about 4 minutes on this article and I've now spent ~30 minutes doing this review. FOARP (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This same user has created many substubs on locations in Poland that follow this model, giving nothing more than a generic statement regarding the location, and then a bit of database information in the infobox, all based off one or two census sources. FOARP, was there some kind of discussion at one point regarding banning GEOLAND articles (or doing something, at least) that are based solely on such sources? I BLAR'd the ones a found at NPP, but Joe Roe reverted those edits, saying that my reasoning was subjective. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've argued that one to death and I don't think we're going to see much movement for a while at least. What I'd like to know is where the location data came from, as it's not in any of the sources in the article. FOARP (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for starting a deletion discussion and doing the research. Could we just redirect Kiedrowice (hamlet) to Kiedrowice? Or if you are certain the sources for the hamlet are actually talking about the same place, they could be added to the village, ie merging. Then if someone does come up with a source that shows the forest settlement is distinct and tells us something meaningful about it, it can easily be resurrected. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There’s nothing to merge here as the content is the same, nor is there any point in a redirect for something nobody is going to search (EDIT: particularly because Kiedrowice is not defined as a hamlet, which in Polish is a przysiółek, but as a forest settlement or osada leśna, so the title is incorrect). The article-content in its entirety is "Kiedrowice is a hamlet in the Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland, within the Gmina Lipnica, Bytów County.", which is identical to content already in the "village" article except that it says "Kiedrowice [kʲɛdrɔˈvit͡sɛ] is a village in Gmina Lipnica, Bytów County, Pomeranian Voivodeship, in northern Poland." There's a post-code in the info-box that I've added to the "village" article, the references are repetitious but appear to say the same thing as the "village" article, but I've added them all the same, so what's left to merge? FOARP (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could get into attribution issues if you've taken content from Kiedrowice (hamlet) and used it in another article?? Not an area I have any expertise in. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no attribution issue with taking content from one page and adding it to another, that already recited essentially the same information (i.e., that Kiedrowice is a village in Gmina Lipnica). FOARP (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I'll probably start an AfD on pl wiki (if I do so I'll link it here if this is still open) but I don't see how this meets GNG. Per [12] it is not a hoax (it exists, classified as osada leśna, separate from the village) but what can be said about it? I fear, nothing. WP:NOPAGE seems to be strong here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Piotrus.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

山州

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

Page doe not meet WP:NONENGLISHTITLE requirements. -- Primium (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Primium (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There's no policy forbidding disambiguation pages with titles in non-English scripts. They're a logical extension of redirects in languages other than English when there's more than one primary topic and we have hundreds in Chinese alone. Suggest you withdraw this and related AfDs. – Joe (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, such disambiguation pages (which are not articles) has been much discussed in the past and is accepted practice. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force. older ≠ wiser 11:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Membership in Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles (384) is not a valid deletion rationale. Not sure how else we'd disambiguate names of subjects that are transliterated differently depending on the native language of the subject, but a new process would take a sitewide RfC. Folly Mox (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

板橋

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

Page doe not meet WP:NONENGLISHTITLE requirements. -- Primium (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Primium (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There's no policy forbidding disambiguation pages with titles in non-English scripts. They're a logical extension of redirects in languages other than English when there's more than one primary topic and we have hundreds in Chinese alone. Suggest you withdraw this and related AfDs. – Joe (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, such disambiguation pages (which are not articles) has been much discussed in the past and is accepted practice. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force. older ≠ wiser 11:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Membership in Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles (384) is not a valid deletion rationale. Not sure how else we'd disambiguate names of subjects that are transliterated differently depending on the native language of the subject, but a new process would take a sitewide RfC. Folly Mox (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Falkholt

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable performer; what content there is, is mostly BLP1E material and not sustained. Had minor TV roles, posthumous lead in a minor film which flopped big-time. Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are fine, but it appears she only had a minor role for a few months in the program. The film role doesn't appear that notable either. I'm not seeing ACTOR met. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing sustained much past the events of the investigation into her death, last coverage is from 2018, and it's only about the events of her passing. No critical discussion of her work or much of anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has minor roles failed WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Bailey

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

This artist does not meet WP criteria for inclusion per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. Their work has not been included in significant exhibitions nor is it held in collections of notable museums or national galleries. Most of the citations are either simple name check mentions or are photo credits; one citation is a personal blog. No enduring record of critical reviews or art historical articles/book chapters or the like. Netherzone (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, California, and Florida. Netherzone (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources found for this artist. Gnewspapers only has mentions of similar people running for mayor somewhere. Not listed in the Getty ULAN. Not meeting notabilit requirements for artists. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/defense. I got the deletion notice as the creator of the page. I spent extra time looking for more credible sources via Google. I found and added 4 extra sources that prove the artist staged regular exhibitions of his paintings in notable nightclubs, galleries, boutiques and private homes. Here are they

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/realestate/gilbert-gottfrieds-chelsea-apartment.html

This New York Times states "Gottfried's high school friend Clifford Bailey, an artist, had a show in New York, she and Mr. Gottfried were in attendance"

https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/06/spongebob-squarepants-fraud-peggy-howell-ninjas-art-theft

This features Bailey extensively

https://www.nashvillescene.com/arts_culture/clifford-baileys-i-the-american-i-at-ovvio-arte/article_8e9c9bad-9217-5b79-a9fc-395b6acc20c9.html

This features Bailey extensively

https://www.mutualart.com/Artist/Clifford-Bailey/9978C3E0F66D240B

This features Bailey's works

I strongly believe with the above sources coupled with the previous ones, the page now meets WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Please consider keeping the page. Thanks. Quche Huzubi (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. The NYT source is one sentence, not SIGCOV, and the article is about another person. Vanity Fair article is about another person, there are a few sentences about Baily being upset that the other person "copied" his work. The Nashville Scene is a five sentence synopsis that seem based on a press release. Mutual Art is a database, that hosts auction records and the like, any artist or gallery can open up an "account" with them; it's a primary database source. This is not the sort of in-depth independent SIGCOV that one normally finds for a notable artist, this is run-of-the-mill coverage; it's not enough for an artist to simply do what artists do, which is make work and occasionally show it. There are hundreds of thousands of artists like that in the U.S. alone. Unfortunately I am not seeing how any of this is enough to pass notability criteria for NARTIST nor GNG. Netherzone (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - SPA, creating this article on their 27th edit. Subject fails WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Seems more like WP:PROMO --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finger Your Neck

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

Topic does not meet notability criteria per WP:NRADIO. The existing sources that can be validated provide only routine coverage (e.g., "This show will be playing Sunday at 8pm!"). One source provides two sentences about the show's creators. A quick Google search did not provide further insights. Significa liberdade (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Significa liberdade (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some extra details and references. The fact it was a play about the mafia adapted to Australian radio is very novel for me - but if concensus of the community is that it isn't quite enough then by all means delete. Britfilm (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Study Breaks

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

The first source on this page is the magazine's own about page, and the third is a press release on a PR website. Neither of those provide notability, and while the Paisano article (archived) does, it alone does not show notability for this article. I couldn't find more coverage, though the problems with searching for a news publication with a generic name like this are not lost on me, but if there indeed isn't more coverage available then I'm afraid this fails the notability pass and should be deleted. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Entertainment, and Texas. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No comments after two relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

White House debate competition hoax

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

This did not receive enough coverage to justify a Wikipedia page. Some kid made a hoax that got a little press coverage. WP:ONEEVENT definitely applies here. Angryapathy (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems well-sourced. Neutral in tone, I think it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Events, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Mass media in Bangladesh. There's no reason why this one-off event with no lasting effects should have its own article. The target article, on the other hand, could benefit from a few sentences about this as part of a broader coverage of the topic's history. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Stanford

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and author-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Military, United States of America, and New Jersey. UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being in the military isn't notable by itself; might have a pass with AUTHOR, but I can't find reviews of his books. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b:. Many reviews have been added. Djflem (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tried to find book reviews of his first two novels in the Library of Congress newspaper archive from 1923-1925, nothing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a credible claim of notability as an author, but unfortunately the sourcing in the article doesn't support the claim and I wasn't able to find in-depth sources about him and his work in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:NAUTHOR. Here are various reviews for multiple of his books. There are many more on newspapers.com:

[13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Jfire (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few old reviews don't satisfy WP:NAUTHOR, fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reviews of multiple works is routinely considered to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:NTEMP. Jfire (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jfire which of the 4 heads of NAUTHOR says that? 3 states "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", so reviews are not sufficient in themselves, unless the author created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. Mztourist (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, the way "significant or well-known" is determined in AfD discussions is via the presence (or absence) of reviews. Examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Shelby, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Collins (writer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Prince-Hughes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lara Prescott. Jfire (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those decisions obviously do not comply with the clear wording of NAUTHOR. Mztourist (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've expanded the article with additional sources and reviews for all but two of his books. I hope this is enough to meet WP:HEY. Jfire (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews found by Jfire, which meet my understanding of both AUTHOR and GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Works have been the primary subject of reviews, thus satisfying WP:NAUTHOR. Djflem (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Espresso Addict and User:Djflem which head of WP:NAUTHOR do you believe he meets? If you are relying on 3 note that it states: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." So reviews are not sufficient in themselves. Mztourist (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of "or reviews" is unclear to you? Djflem (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"or reviews" is perfectly clear, but you are ignoring the "In addition", which means that reviews are secondary to the first sentence requiring the subject author to have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." which has not been established. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not ignoring a thing, that's your assumption. (spare us). As it the idea that Alfred Stanford has not created a significant collective body of work despite reviews that confirm that. Djflem (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No assumption made, that's clearly what 3 says. If reviews were all that was required then why would 3 be worded as it is? Mztourist (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia requires Wikipedia:Reliable sources.Djflem (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over whether WP:NAUTHOR is met by having reviews of books by the author.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews are the obvious way to establish that an author has created a noteworthy body of work. That's not just common sense; it's how WP:NAUTHOR has been applied day in and day out. I daresay this should not have been relisted. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint you, XOR'easter. I like there to be a clear consensus before closing an AFD. Otherwise, a closure is likely to be challenged at Deletion review. And, unfortunately, we have fewer and fewer admins patrolling AFDs, closing discussions so the few of us who do tend to review a lot of AFDs. But many AFDs are closed before their relisting period ends so that might happen. ^{Liz Read! Talk!} 04:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The added reviews make it clear that this passes WP:GNG. -- Mike 🗩 17:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Really history in this article with viable secondary sources. Passes WP:AUTHOR. scope_creep^Talk 17:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR, which I will concede is a low bar.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Kansas Historical Society. Smerge. None of the keep arguments has addressed a compelling policy based argument backed up by sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas History

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources (some minor awards -to articles, not the journal itself- leading to in-passing mentions and library catalogs are not WP:SIGCOV). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODed with reason "Significant academic journal as part of a significant historical society in the US". However, this assertion is not supported by any independent reliable sources, neither for the journal nor for the society, so merging this to the society does not appear to be a good alternative. Anyway, PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Kansas. Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was never published as an academic journal, and should not be assessed that way. It is (or was) a publication of the Kansas State Historical Society in Topeka, Kansas. It was published as "a journal of the Central Plains : a ten-year cumulative index." Whether or not this is currently in publication is probably not an issue. But as for the validity, it is listed at the Library of Congress ^[1], and World Cat as of 1978. ^[2] — Maile (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: academic journal or not, being listed in WorldCat or the LoC is not an indication of notability as inclusion is automatic for any periodical published in the US and is certainly not SIGCOV. --Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My remarks above do not say WorldCat or the LoC gave it notability. I only said "validity", which is not the same as "notability". Validity just affirms they exist.— Maile (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has questioned the validity, it exists. But what makes you think this is notable? --Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a scholarly journal (although it might not have been considered one when it was still under the umbrella of the Kansas Historical Society...Kansas State University has a significant history program). And it's not at all unusual for articles within scholarly journals to win awards...awards they wouldn't have won had the journal not existed. Coverage and scope is sufficient in my view. But if it is decided to delete, then the article about the precursor journal (Kansas Historical Quarterly) should come up for deletion as well. Its article is just a stub. Intothat darkness 17:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the awards make perhaps the articles notable or their authors (even though they look pretty minor to me), but even if the journal had not existed, those articles would have been published elsewhere, there's an abundance of local history journals. Whether this is deleted or kept, the article on Kansas Historical Quarterly should be a redirect at best as we don't make separate articles for periodicals if their name changes. --Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"..even if the journal had not existed, those articles would have been published elsewhere." Seriously? How can you know that? While you can assert there are a number of local history journals, that doesn't automatically guarantee publication or anything else. I don't find your contention persuasive or indicative of this journal lacking notability. Intothat darkness 12:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fact in academic publishing: if an article is rejected by one journal, it almost invariably gets eventually published elsewhere. These articles got an award. Even though minor, it would not have been difficult to get them published elsewhere. --Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know about academic publishing, but your statement is still opinion and isn't in my view related to the notability of this journal. The fact is they were published in THIS journal, and received awards when published in THIS journal. Intothat darkness 13:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, I was just responding to your hypothetical "if this journal didn't exist". My point remains that these minor awards for articles (not the journal) do not make this notable. --Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No...you were asserting these articles would have been published anyhow, which you can't know. While this might at one point have been a local history journal (that's debatable, but the article isn't about the precursor journals), Kansas History is now overseen and published by the notable history department of a major university. I see no reason to modify my Keep based on what you've demonstrated so far. Intothat darkness 16:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't see even a shred of policy-based reasoning to keep this.WP:NOTINHERITED. --Randykitty (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get a strong sense of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT here. Which is not a solid reason for deleting the article. Intothat darkness 02:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And given the absence of any independent RS that you come up with, I get a strong feeling of WP:ILIKEIT, which is not a solid reason to keep the article. --Randykitty (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It is difficult to get independent RS for academic societies and their journals, but that does not mean that they are NN. My guess is that this is a low level academic journal, but it is peer-reviewed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Since when is it sufficient to be peer-reviewed in order to be notable? A few weeks ago there was a huge discussion at WP:NJournals and other places where some editors only wanted to accept that a journal is peer-reviewed if that was confirmed by independent references. And journal articles would only be acceptable if they meet GNG, forget about NJournals... I feel like I'm sitting on a seesaw...--Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have three keeps and the original nom who seems determined to badger anyone who votes keep. Three to one seems like a reasonably clear consensus, especially since there have been no other delete noms. The journal itself is an academic, peer-reviewed publication put out by a major university and its articles have won awards. It's not a newsletter pushed out by a county historical society. Intothat darkness 18:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree to keep as well based on the reasons stated above. In addition, the article may have been edited lately, but I don't see language that would indicate that there were contributions by a close contributor. It is linked from a number of articles and seems to me to be a worthwhile and helpful article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So far we have no policy-based arguments supporting keep. Maile66 has confirmed that the journal exists, but this is not a valid reason to keep the article. They note that the journal was never published as an academic journal, and should not be assessed that way - in which case we default to WP:GNG, and no reliable independent sources has been provided (the Buckskin Bulletin gives a passing mention; everything else is either primary or a catalogue listing). There is the argument from Intothatdarkness that the journal is notable because of the awards it has won - which might possibly pass C3 of WP:NJOURNALS. However, if we are going to make this argument, we would need evidence that these awards are indeed significant enough to demonstrate the journal's historical importance in its subject area - and for this we would need reliable secondary sources attesting to the importance of these awards, which have not been presented (and I cannot find any evidence of this myself). Peterkingiron notes that this is a low level peer-reviewed academic journal; however, being peer-reviewed does not make an academic journal notable (indeed, pretty much every academic journal is peer-reviewed - almost by definition). CaroleHenson notes that the article does not show signs of a conflict of interest, and that the article is useful - neither of these are valid keep reasons. Determining the notability of academic journals is notoriously difficult - and, for that reason, controversial. WP:NJOURNALS can be a useful resource but it is imperfect and controversial - notably, it does not have the consensus around it to be a policy or guideline. However, the recent critiques of NJOURNALS have been that it is too lenient, that too many non-notable journals are kept based on NJOURNALS arguments. What is less controversial is that a journal which does not pass the requirements of NJOURNALS is likely to not be notable. In this case, we have a journal which is not indexed by any selective databases: indexing in such databases can be a useful benchmark for notability. Equally, WorldCat lists Kansas History as being held by 1372 libraries worldwide. Whether this counts as sufficient to establish notability is a subjective judgment call - but, by comparison, the American Historical Review is held by 2945 libraries and the Journal of American History is held by 2691 libraries. To my mind, this would be the best argument for keeping this article, but - especially absent any further indicators of notability - I find it to be insufficient. And, given that there is no subject-specific notability guideline for academic journals, we ought to be referring to the general notability guideline, which requires independent reliable secondary sources, of which none have been provided. WJ94 (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the awards was presented by the Western History Association, an academic organization promoting scholarship in this area. I don't know that I'd call that a minor award. But clearly mileage will vary. Intothat darkness 15:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For perspective, look at the huge number of awards that this association gives every year... --15:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Randykitty (talk)

@Intothatdarkness: Do you have any reliable sources which support the significance of this award? WJ94 (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any that say it's not? Frankly, since there isn't as much money or status in the humanities their organizations don't tend to be as exhaustively or obsessively covered as, say, science or obscure soccer players. The nom appears determined to steer this through to deletion, so I bow to the inevitable. Intothat darkness 17:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Maybe it's just a newsletter or a magazine but it's obv a major publication by and for serious Kansas history nerds, and third in a chronological series of three per this. We cite it in articles such as Sacking of Lawrence. If the consensus is that it's not notable enough, I believe it should be folded into a section of the article about the historical society. jengod (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both Kansas History and The Kansas Historical Quarterly into Kansas Historical Society. The second journal seems to be little more than a name change from the first, and both are inseparable from the organization that produces them. Nothing would be lost by merging and presenting this information in the context of the organization. BD2412 T 23:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Saga of the Skolian Empire. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eubians

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

not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Other than the books they appear in, there appears to be no discussion of this group of people. Not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saga of the Skolian Empire which has some coverage, as WP:ATD —siro χ o 21:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to target above. Fails GNG. Unreferenced. Ping me if better sources are found (unlikely). I did BEFORE too and no luck finding anything useful on my part, I fear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE didn't reveal any suitable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I searched newspapers.com and found some references to the Eubian Gulf and Eubian goats, but nothing about Eubian people. Delete Jacona (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World of Music (Zeebra album)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Failss the general and album-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It likely passes WP:NALBUM. It charted for six weeks and went as high as #11 nationally in Japan, per Oricon. I may not have time to perform a search for significant coverage but WP:BEFORE should be done in Japanese here. Dekimasuよ! 19:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM per evidence provided above by Dekimasu.4meter4 (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, charted, reference added. J04n(talk page) 20:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the WP:NALBUM#2 Lightburst (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Woodward (actor)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and actor-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, California, and Oklahoma. UtherSRG (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly tagged because nobody knew how to find the sources. From the AFI (American Film Institute) catalogue, I was able to link the list of his films. Over a period of 32 years, he made a lot of films. FYI, The American Film Institute was founded by a 1965 presidential mandate to establish a national arts organization to preserve the legacy of American film heritage. The problem with searching for sources on the actor Bob Woodward, is that the same-named The Washington Post reporter of the Watergate era keeps coming up. The actor Bob Woodward was indeed in all five seasons of the Gene Autry Show, which I found a source for. Although ImDB is not technically used as a source, a glance at his page will show you that he worked for decades in the medium of television. Hopefully, another Wikipedia editor will find more sourcing. — Maile (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that he fails GNG and NACTOR. He was in half of the episodes of both The Gene Autry Show and Buffalo Bill, Jr., and had named roles in large number of films. He was a staple in Gene Autry's productions, and a stunt double for Autry, Buck Jones, and few others. He's also in the Hollywood Stuntmen's Hall of Fame. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pass in WP:NACTOR Criteria, have significant roles in many films or drama Worldiswide (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Acid Mothers Temple discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Gals A Go-Go

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and album-specific notability policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Acid Mothers Temple discography. I could not find enough sources to support a standalone article. Jfire (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Acid Mothers Temple discography per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gustaf Wachtmeister

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general notability policy, as well as the biography-specific one. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Sweden. UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of available sources, like Swedish encyclopedias. See Svenska män och kvinnor : biografisk uppslagsbok, Svenskt biografiskt handlexikon or his entry in Nordisk familjebok. Swedish Wikipedia also refers to Ätten Wachtmeister genom seklerna by sv:Sven Grauers, which I don't have access to right now. Easily notable just looking at what's been digitalized, however. /Julle (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Entries in various Nordic encyclopedias clearly establish notability. Jfire (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I quick check turns up possible sources per WP:NEXIST. I sure hope someone adds a few to the article. Lightburst (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Water jet (recreation)

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

seems unlikely this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Geography. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hard to find significant coverage on this particular niche device, but the statement "it is also used in agriculture" suggests the author of the article wasn't exactly splitting hairs.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to water cannon, this subject is basically a subtype. - Indefensible (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wholly unsourced (for 16.71 years!) without any evidence of improvability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and move to Urban flight.‎. No point in a Merge as Urban flight is a Redirect page with no content but a link. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban colonization

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

Hard to tell if this is correct as it has been uncited for over a decade Chidgk1 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Behavioural science and Geography. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not cleanup. The article has no proper citations, true, but discusses two analyses in named published works and has two "Further reading" sources, so it's clearly notable and probably secretly sourced, just not how we like it.
Urban flight redirects to this article, which is backwards. Keep and move to Urban flight over redirect. Folly Mox (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes you are right I had not noticed the urban flight redirect. This seems a good solution as even I have heard of urban flight so that must be a more common name Chidgk1 (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way White flight has over 100 cites but not sure how that fits in Chidgk1 (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Urban flight per above. Clearly a notable and much-discussed topic in the news and scholarly sources. The article is quite bad, but AfD is not cleanup, and this does not raise to the level of WP:TNT imo. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Urban flight: No reason for WP:TNT. Nagol0929 (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Singleton field

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

Impossible to understand unless the reader is already a mathematician. The lead is supposed to be understandable with the tough stuff in the body of the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's discussed in several papers in Gscholar, but I'm not sure of what it is exactly. Needs a rewrite, perhaps review by a subject-matter expers. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not believe that the nomination presents a valid deletion rationale. An article about advanced mathematical physics is going to be incomprehensible to readers who aren't mathematicians or physicists, and there's just not much we can do about that. A stub lacking an introduction that holds the reader's hand is not a reason to delete it. XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, speedy keep criterion 1 applies: being too technical isn't a reason for deletion. It isn't even a problem, necessarily: we're talking about a niche subject that a physics student wouldn't even encounter until a couple years into graduate school at the earliest, not the opening paragraphs of the Albert Einstein biography page. Second, sources exist with which the article could be expanded. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Browsing the Google Scholar entries, (and being outside my scientific field), it does seem like there's enough coverage to warrant a stub, but it definitely needs to be encyclopedia-ified given how technical the subject is. I wonder if there may be a better home to nest this subject under for more context, but that would take someone well-versed in quantum mechanic subjects to assess. Until then, keep but definitely leave the tag from 2009. KoA (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as no valid reason for deletion has been advanced. PianoDan (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus in this discussion, editors are all over the map. That doesn't mean that editors can't work on a Merge or Redirect, it's just that that decision will not come out of this AFD discussion since there are a fair number of editors who are arguing to Keep this article. I suggest a talk page discussion before taking action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paper organization

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

Hard to tell if this is correct as when I search for cites I just find stuff about how to organize papers Chidgk1 (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Front organization, a closely related topic. I could not find any coverage in reliable sources for "paper organization" in the sense described in this article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stub for future elaboration and referencing. A paper organization can be a type of front, but it's not really a front for another group if it's just one or two people with a letterhead (or, these days, a web site). If @Carrite: were looking for some examples, he might look at the phantom armies in Military Deception or the imaginary spy rings in the Double Cross (XX) system in World War II, or. on the political side, the discussion of Farmer Labor politics in 1923-4 in Irving Howe's and Lewis Coser's The American Communist Party: a critical history (Praeger:1957, 1962) pp. 122-5; "... the Communists were wildly, furiously, joyously at work concocting a pile of paper organizations which would send compliant cardboard delegates to the Chicago convention." (followed in the same chapter by a listing of some of those organizations). @Rjensen: —— Shakescene (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - there seems to be little or nothing to support this article, or to justify the proposed redirect. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or redirect or merge) - this can be useful, for example see First United States Army Group, a "paper army" from WWII. - wolf 02:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suppose one might argue for deletion on DICTDEF grounds, although I believe the encyclopedia would be poorer for it. It should absolutely not be rendered a redirect to Front organization, however, as a front group may be a concrete organization or a fantasy group with little more than an executive and a letterhead. As is noted, there is a valid and different meaning for "paper organization" in a military context. Both of these use cases are important, major concepts and I really don't see how deletion would be anything but pedantic. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — IAR. The encyclopedia is better with the page than without it. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does IAR mean please? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1 "IAR" refers to the policy, Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It it were still an option, Transwiki to Wiktionary. I think I've found sufficient information to create the term in Wiktionary, but not enough to support a Wikipedia article. See for instance, pg 57 of "Ambush Valley" (link, requires free registration). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a Wiktionary article at wikt:paper organization. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking like no consensus but let’s give it one more relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nagol0929 (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look around too, and I agree with Cullen328. There's just not a coherent concept that the world has documented, here. There are plenty of things listed as existing on paper only, but there's nothing anywhere that collects them and studies them as an actual single concept. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Front organization. This is a closely related topic that is not independently notable. (Also glad to see User:Uncle G back!) Reywas92^Talk 01:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vasudevaperumal Temple (Kolathanvalsu)

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

I could literally find no sources for this temple. Sohom (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Maps link provided shows a rather modest temple in the middle of the field, while I'm not doubting the temple's existence, I don't see it being notable :( Sohom (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, India, and Tamil Nadu. Sohom (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File sequence

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

unsourced for over a decade and not sure this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsourced essay; the good parts are already at File system. I don't see use of this term on Google Scholar and cannot endorse any redirect. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Schnitzer

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

Seems to be WP:TOOSOON for an article at the moment as I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps he may become notable once he plays in the Olympics next summer. JTtheOG (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That may be fair, although I will share my rationale for creating this article now and why I think it makes sense to leave the stub article as created and active. My understanding of volleyball notability comes from past discussions Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_24#Volleyball_notability_proposal_2. This year's 2023 FIVB Volleyball Men's Olympic Qualification Tournaments is actually serving as the 2023 Volleyball Men's World Cup which meets this criteria for his inclusion on Wikipedia. There is some third party coverage of his contributions in this tournament, including his 10 points against China which were the third highest in the match for Canada. link and link 2. I will try to add this into the article. For now this is the summary of my defence for the inclusion of the article as it is now. Words in the Wind(talk) 17:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Userfy: WP:NOTJUSTYET, allow him play in the next summer, it should be good to go by then. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I have moved to draft now. Feel free to delete and I may recreate once the Olympic teams are named shortly before the games. Words in the Wind(talk) 20:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Words in the Wind Looks like you forgot to draftify? I will urge you to draftify since you're the original creator of the article. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Jordan_Schnitzer Words in the Wind(talk) 20:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh or @Liz, creator created a draft copy for preservation till subject passes notability. Can this be closed as moved to draft by creator. Although, they didn't actually move it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify Clearly not yet notable enough per WP:GNG, which is the applicable guideline here. Whether they become notable in the foreseeable future, I don't know, and in any case this is only speculation. So technically should probably be deleted, but I can live with draftifying also. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he attains greater notability. Simply qualifying for the Olympics isn't an instant notability freebie anymore, so we require a lot more WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him (which is not the same thing as "coverage that happens to glance off his name in the process of being fundamentally about something else") to get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk bins

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

don't seem to be a notable type of container Chidgk1 (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Scattered mentions of the term in Gnewspapers for example, but simple mentions don't describe what this is, beyond an expanded DICDEF I can't find any sources for this item. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Software

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Arizona, and Wisconsin. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The guideline states that in order for a company to be notable, the sources have to be secondary, independent, and reliable. There are three references that cite the "About" pages of companies, one reference citing a Google+ forum, two of them cite the subject's website, and the remaining one doesn't give significant coverage. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 05:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Bore (engine). Star Mississippi 02:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bore pitch

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

I searched but it was hard to tell whether this is notable - it has been uncited for over a decade Chidgk1 (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Transportation. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This might be at the wrong title, but I'm not sure why we'd need to remove an article explaining a mechanical engineering parameter. I got true positives for both "bore pitch" and "bore spacing" at Google Scholar, TWL, Gale Academic, and Springer. Got results for "bore spacing" at Jstor. Close to twenty inbound links to the article, and I'm not seeing a suitable merge target, with the caveat that I'm not a mechanical engineering.
I think this is clearly an engineering concept we should explain somewhere, even if it's not important enough to earn its own academic studies or book chapters. Folly Mox (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bore (engine). The Bore article is very short and sweet, but this is clearly a closely related concept that doesn't need a separate article. Some of the content is unencyclopedic but the topic should be at least mentioned at target. --‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge never goes out fo style. Two short articles related to each other are ripe for a merger. Prefer to merge over deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Echo hut

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

Stub. Merge into Bon Echo Provincial Park. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a cabin people can use in a provincial park here in Ontario. Not sure why it's notable, more so than any other cabin in a provincial park. This appears as a PROMO (it has a fireplace for drying clothes!). You can reach it by boat! Wonderful stuff, but not wikipedia material. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article cites no references and it doesn't look like there are any independent sources discussing the topic. -- Primium (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Porter

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and sports-related notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Horse racing, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Star Porter's sire The Porter (horse) is indeed notable but on balance Star Porter doesn't seem to be. Limited sources but taking the following source as reliable, Star Porter is not featured as a notable progeny.http://www.americanclassicpedigrees.com/the-porter.html. Based on this, I don't believe a redirect/merge is required to the sire and this article can be deleted. Also, the races won by Star Porter in the article don't seem notable as none appear to have wikilinked articles. Rupples (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hershey Entertainment Complex. Star Mississippi 02:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Pavilion

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and building-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Architecture, and Entertainment. UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hershey Entertainment Complex with the infobox. No coverage of opening or expansion, only of tour dates Mach61 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sookshm Information Services

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV (although I'm not as good at finding quality Indian sources on a WP:BEFORE). BuySomeApples (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sources with significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tasty 168

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

WP:ORPHAN that doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines unless someone else has an easier time finding sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Canada. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soverel 33

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Single reference is a 404 error to a database. Fails the general and product-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gbooks has enough coverage to verify the specs, from a period magazine [19], this is a discussion of the boat [20] under the rather hopeful title of "Stocking Stuffers". Should be ok. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised at your !vote, Oaktree. Specs are just a listing, so not WP:SIGCOV, and the discussion is also failing that quality. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does have two full pages of specs, they seem rather detailed, I'd consider them significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above sources and these additional newspaper sources:

"5-race weekend series is a Soverel showcase". South Florida Sun Sentinel. 1985-12-12. p. 52. Retrieved 2023-10-10.
"Soverel's success comes by design". The Miami Herald. 1984-02-26. p. 315. Retrieved 2023-10-10.
"Sea beckened Stuart sailor, designer at an early age". The Stuart News. 1985-12-13. p. 21. Retrieved 2023-10-10.

I'd expect additional coverage to be available in specialty periodicals of the period, which are unlikely to be accessible online. Jfire (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sailboatdata (the only refrence in the article) is not reliable. However, the sources found by Jfire leads me to vote keep. -- Mike 🗩 17:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources found by Jfire. The stub can be improved and I hope that someone adds the sources. Lightburst (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign (Sansom novel)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010 and contains no references. Fails the general and book-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several reviews just plunking Sovereign Sansom into the Ebscosearch; a more thorough search would undoubtably find more. According to the Shardlake series article it has been adapted for radio. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's been widely reviewed in both the U.K. and U.S., adapted for radio and stage, and the series is in production for television by Disney+. I've added a sourced "Reception" section to the article. Clearly notable. Jfire (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its been updated per WP:HEYMANN and is more than visibly notable now. scope_creep^Talk 17:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Illinois High School Association member conferences. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southwestern Conference (Illinois)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. All references are not independent, so fails the general and organization-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, Sports, United States of America, and Illinois. UtherSRG (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Illinois High School Association member conferences: Agree with the nom rationale regarding this subject being non-notable. This is another high-school athletic conference with a lack of WP:GNG coverage. Mentions in local newspapers or television stations are routine and don't equate to notability. A redirect to the overall association under which this conference operates seems like a fine WP:ATD. 19:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Let'srun (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Lincoln Cathedral. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Mystery Plays

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

Promotion for local production of historical plays. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Prod removal mentions two sources [21] [22] but these are purely local, containing identical quotes and are comprised primarily of quotes from the director and publicity material. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lincoln Cathedral: Not notable alone, could be merged with the cathedral article, all coverage found relates to it anyway Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively with Lincoln Cathedral as not independently notable fir a standalone article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine's Cede of Ani to Georgia

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

Not ready for mainspace, WP:BIAS Annwfwn (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Annwfwn (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Armenia, and Georgia (country). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom; prefer title Draft:Byzantine cession of Ani to Georgia or similar. Folly Mox (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Senators of the 38th Canadian Parliament and same-sex marriage

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

I cannot really see how an article of this level of detail is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Canada. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senators of the 39th Canadian Parliament and same-sex marriage. gnu 57 22:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historical subject

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

unsourced for over a decade and incomprehensible to me and presumably to anyone who is not already a philosopy graduate Chidgk1 (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - WP:DICTIONARY, a short philosophical definition of the term "historical subject". No sourcing. — Maile (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unsourced article not needed on Wikipedia. FatCat96 (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Maksimenko

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

Unable to find any decent coverage in the Cyrillic or Latin alphabet. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC and never appeared to have been a key footballer for Kazakhstan, playing only 155 mins in 5 matches in one campaign before disappearing. The only coverage that I could find was Olympic, which is a squad list mention and confirmation of receiving a yellow card. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 12:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky (Indian TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Tagged for notability since 2013 DonaldD23 talk to me 14:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samsun Atatürk Anatolian High School

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

Barebones article merely citing a just as barebones web page, with no indication of notability. – anlztrk (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. – anlztrk (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably the most well known school in the city. I have added an academic reference. Pretty sure native Turkish speakers can find more by searching for the previous name - including "Maarif" as you can see at Anatolian High School. It is a bit irritating that the Turkish article has no cites - if you are Turkish it would be handy if you could add cites for us to copy here, at least for İsmet İnönü visit. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 12:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angrezi Mein Kehte Hain

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Tagged for notability since 2020 DonaldD23 talk to me 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha King

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. She does have a couple of Canadian Country Music Award nominations in down-the-line categories like Independent Female Artist of the Year (which I had to correct, because the article was falsely claiming she had been nominated for the topline Female Artist of the Year, as in "Shania Twain/Terri Clark/Tenille Townes level superstar") and Rising Star, so a neutrally-written and properly sourced article about her would be fine -- but this, as written, is promotionally toned and poorly sourced, and has been tagged for that problem for over a decade without resolution.
The article additionally claimed a Juno Award nomination that I have been completely unable to verify, as her name fails to show up even in the Junos' own self-published database of its past winners and nominees -- I've already removed that due to its unverifiability, but it still leaves a lot of article's other claims also questionable in the absence of better sourcing than this.
But apart from the nominal verification of the CCMA nominations themselves, this is otherwise referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, one glancing namecheck of her existence in a source that isn't about her, one source that completely fails to support the claim being cited to it (it's "sourcing" a concert, but is about a hockey game), and just one piece of coverage about her in the weekly hyperlocal of a suburb of her own hometown.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can salvage it with a neutral writing tone and better sourcing, but particularly in light of the {{tone}} template having been on the article for 13 years without repair, it's time to fix it or lose it. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viwawa

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Only passing mentions/listings. Fails the general and company-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Business, Companies, and Singapore. UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was recreated mere months after the first AFD closed as delete, with almost identical content, which has remained essentially unchanged for 12 years now, with a few primary source announcements added in 2011. No evidence of notability. -- ferret (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: current sourcing is PR/news releases. I can't find mention of the software in RS, and it's been discontinued, so we likely won't find anything further. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything to add, and there's not enough here to meet any of the notability guidelines. Jacona (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Venkanna H. Naik

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and politician-specific notability criteria. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Politics, India, and Uttarakhand. UtherSRG (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing found in Jstor, Gscholar or Books. Sourcing used here is simply confirmation of existence, most of the article is unsourced, could be OR Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my searching failed to identify WP:GNG compliant sourcing, appears WP:OR and we're not a WP:MEMORIAL. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Vagabond Queen (opera)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general notability policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Music, and Theatre. UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:RSs at all. It looks to me like all of the articles about works by Edward Barnes (composer) ought to be deleted, and his article is a jumble of WP:PROMO. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I could find was a one sentence entry in Operas in English. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mirko Uhlig

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. References are questionable as for meeting the golden rule. Fails the general and musician-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Germany. UtherSRG (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. I'm not sure how I went "BLP1E" then named two other events she was involved in. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 13:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Junlper

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

Contested PROD. Clear WP:BLP1E created after her suspension from Twitter. She's not notable on her own, only the things she did (goblin mode, Snickers dick vein, both of which have articles) are. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 13:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 13:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If someone wants to redirect after deletion go for it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Spencer (Psych)

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

There is very little notable coverage of this character from sources not affiliated with the character. The one source that does is much more of a passing mention. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well just based on the sources in the article I would be a !delete, but others might find some sources. Conyo14 (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From my search, there is only part of a book that gives him any mention, and that is Arp's Psych and Philosophy. However, it is far from being enough to warrant a stand-alone page. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 20:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Books are definitely better than website articles in my opinion. However...

Delete per nom. I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV aside from the occasional recap. Although I am open to changing it if someone finds more. Conyo14 (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Poorly referenced, no analysis/reception, just "characterization" (but see my first point). Fails GNG as written. Ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotrus. Not enough reception in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Lassiter

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

This article suffers from a lack of meaningful coverage. Anything of value is already said in the main Psych article. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG
1. Loads of SIGCOV in Psych and Philosophy: Some Dark Juju-Magumbo [23]
2. SIGCOV in the aggressively-titled Shit Is Fucked Up And Bullshit: History Since the End of History[24]
3. SIGCOV in Paste review [25]
4. More coverage of how the actor's real life medical issues were written into the second movie [26]

—siro χ o 16:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first two touch on the character well, but I doubt that they are significant in scope enough to warrant a page. The reviews are more fitting for either the actor's page or the movie's page. Even then, the first two sources still appear to touch more on the character in the show rather than discuss him in a meaningful way that speaks to the broader genre, reception, or even impact. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping some coverage from the above sources to help demonstrate WP:GNG:
1. Psych and Philosophy: Some Dark Juju-Magumbo
  - Michaud
    An Ad Hominem (translated "to the man") is a fallacy in which we attack the person instead of the claim that the person makes. Lassiter is a favorite victim of Shawn's Ad Hominem. Lassiter, especially early on in the series, would attempt to point out that Shawn is a fraud and, generally, Shawn refused to even engage Lassiter's claims. He would simply call Lassiter a name of some kind or make fun of some neurotic quality of his, and move on. Lassiter is often taken aback and dumbfounded by these comments, and before he can recover, Shawn has already moved on. When we think about it, though, we realize that Shawn has never really addressed Lassiter's claim-he has avoided it by making fun of "Lassie."
  - Malloy
    the antithesis of the Overman--the last man. Gus and Lassiter, in particular, are last men. The last man, as Nietzsche describes him, is the ultimate herd animal. He is mediocre, passive, and complacent. Plainly, this is not a perfect description of either Gus or Lassiter, but in their relations to Shawn, they are last men.
  - Ruiz
    Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) identified something he called Slave Morality. Detective Lassiter is a good example of someone in the grip of Slave Morality. According to Nietzsche, slave morality is the kind of attitudes and behavior we adopt when our self-image is threatened by greatness in others.
    Instead of looking within ourselves when we don't measure up to some ideal of excellence. we find it easier to point fingers at others or to pretend that our own failings are really virtues.
Harris, Shit Is Fucked Up And Bullshit: History Since the End of History
Like Hank, Psych's veteran detective, Carlton Lassiter (Timothy Omundson), can't hack it in the big leagues. In keeping with Psych's ADD po-mo charm, he's not so much a movie antihero cop as a cop who models himself on movie antihero cops. But amid Shawn and his partner Gus's (Dulé Hill) buddy-comedy hijinks, the show never develops "Lassie" and his conflicts with his partner Juliet (Maggie Lawson) ... and Police Chief Vick (Kirsten Nelson). The series hints at a wrecked marriage and his obsessive need to be the cop archetype he imagines he should be (setting him up for a means-ends crisis), but the writers never give him the narrative space to do much more than hint. Omundson imbues this straight-man role with occasional glimpses of stern sadness that make him a bright point in an already strong cast. In one episode, a visiting fed tells him he could have been an FBI agent, maybe, if he'd gone to college. In another, he finds out that his score on the detective's exam--which he believed to be the highest in the department--wasn't only worse than Juliet's, but also worse than Shawn's, who aced the test as an adolescent. Lassiter's good never seems good enough.
Gunderson in Paste
They made Lassiter the lucky survivor of a brutal shooting in the middle of a secret case he can no longer remember, whose slow, monotonous recovery in a fancy private hospital outside of Santa Barbara is either part of the plot that got him shot in the first place (Lassiter’s take), or has him seeing mysteries ... where there are none.... Narratively, this works aces in giving Lassie plenty of opportunities to bicker with Shawn and Gus (Dulé Hill), vent to Juliet (Maggie Lawson) and grumble at Nurse Dolores (guest star Sarah Chalke), while also driving the plot engines of the story’s various investigations. Practically, it gives Omundson—who’s really turning in excellent work—chill recovery-friendly perks like rolling around his room, Rear Window-style, in a slick wheelchair, hanging out with a sweet-tempered German Shepherd (spoiler: Morrissey is back!) and napping in a plush, king-sized bed while Rodriguez holds his hand....
In short: Lassiter’s recovery-centric arc, from start to finish, makes perfect sense. Not only that, it’s a genuine joy to see the whole Psychphrancisco team rally around Lassiter after his stroke on screen, just as the whole Psych team has been rallying around Omundson after his own in the real world. Nothing to baffle here.

—siro χ o 16:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Siroxo. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet O'Hara

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

There is little of value here. The references are mostly just episodes for the fictional biography and say nothing about any meaningful analysis or reception of the character. The main Psych article is almost undoubtedly sufficient for coverage. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question The nomination is based on the current state of the article, which according to WP:NEXIST is not the decisive factor. Was the required WP:BEFORE search done? As there are a number of hits in suggested Google Books and Google Scholar searches, could there please be some commentary why these should not amount to sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article? Daranios (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the guideline. I almost doubt that it's necessary to justify denying the inclusion of these hits, since a fairly large portion of the first page are novel adaptations. The USA Network book seems to be a copy-paste job of Wikipedia, so that is obviously not allowed. The few books that mention the actual character are mostly reserved to passing mentions or don't really discuss the character in a meaningful way outside of their role in the show. Compare this to the Gus (Psych) article, where when I did search for material on the character, there were articles that mentioned him and took him out of the scope of just the television series, such as character identity and falling outside of the tropes commonly found in sidekicks of detective fiction.

Google Scholar paints a similar picture, with Amino Apps being a hit for some reason. The "Mystifying Rationale of Psychic Detection" largely deals with the two main characters — Shawn Spencer and Burton Guster. The same guideline you cited is precisely why I haven't nominated these two main characters to be deleted. However, the Shawn Spencer article is in a bad state. I do know that it can be fixed at least. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Always better to hear the analysis than be left in the dark. Daranios (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG
1. Loads of SIGCOV in Psych and Philosophy: Some Dark Juju-Magumbo [27]
2. SIGCOV in Television's Female Spies and Crimefighters [28]
3. A bit in Cable Guys: Television and Masculinities in the 21st Century [29]
4. IGN has SIGCOV across many episode reviews, including e.g. [30][31][32][33]
5. SIGCOV across several reviews in Den of Geek. This review has a choice quote about how the character is used to speak to a real-life actor who is recovering from a stroke [34]. Den of Geek also has some other usable reviews, e.g. [35][36]

—siro χ o 16:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Arp's Psych and Philosophy is the closest one to being any meaningful, significant coverage. As for the others, including the reviews, they really don't say much outside of her role in the show/episode/movie plot. Television's Female Spies doesn't elaborate much more than the relationship and her willingness to believe Shawn.

The Cable Guys section rarely mentions Juliet. If anything, it's a good source for Shawn Spencer's page or Gus's page. Even the "Very Juliet Episode" review is mostly confined to the plot only to discuss that, despite the name, "As usual, Shawn and Gus got the most screen-time". So, I really don't think there's a strong reason to keep. I don't think Arp's book alone is sufficient. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. I would also argue that the Psych and Philosophy does not confer notability. -- Mike 🗩 19:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, Psych and Philosophy in total has many pages worth of secondary analysis of the character throughout the book, discussing the character in context of multiple philosophical and sociological concepts, and occasionally comparing the use of the character to other media. The coverage also comes from multiple authors who have each contributed chapters to the book. The individual essay "The Amazing Psych-Man Versus the Sexist Mentalist" by Mona Rocha alone has several pages of secondary analysis of the character, and other essays have SIGCOV on their own as well. —siro χ o 23:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the secondary sources which have been listed collectively allow to write an article which fullfills WP:WHYN, so I see no benefit for the users of Wikipedia in deleting this article. Daranios (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost none of the coverage in the listed sources are significant. The sum of plot recaps does not make something notable. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the fact, that basically a paragraph or more of commentary could be written from the contents of Psych and Philosophy (I cannot see all of it), supplemented by short additions (like "Juliet O'Hara is an interesting" but also "a peripheral character", as well as the significance/effect of the Shawn/Juliet relationship being very slow) + providing referenced plot summary + appearance data from other sources, therefore taken together fullfilling the requirements of both WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT. Daranios (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just combining the sum of trivial mentions. 7 words isn't much or enough to justify keeping it. "Juliet is interesting". That says nothing of real value. Compared to the material on Shawn and Gus, who have been analyzed in the greater scope of detective fiction, tropes, and design, it just feels like there is very little on this character that has any weight. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"7 words isn't much or enough to justify keeping it." No, it isn't. It's the pages dealing with Juliet in Psych and Philosophy, somewhat supplemented by the other sources. And I readily believe that there is significantly less material than on Shawn and Gus. But more than the paragraph that the characters without their own articles on List of Psych characters have, and more than the usual threshhold between a stub and an article, which is the critereon for a stand-alone article applied by WP:MERGEREASON #3. And even if it were just on the order of the other characters on that list, outright deletion would make little sense: It would leave an empty section there, while more minor characters had their own paragraph. In that case a merger there would be the way to go. Daranios (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Using the sources above, I've overhauled the article, adding a § Reception and analysis section which is now the bulk of the article. —siro χ o 19:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources and edits made by Siroxo. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Tanguy

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

Routine media coverage, not notable businessperson. Reads like COI Assirian cat (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Arts, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rather easy to find RS, these are the first two from Gnews [37], [38]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as Oaktree b says above there are long profile pieces which seem to suggest notability. They seem to me to be largely interviews but with sufficient critical editorial to be useable as a RS. JMWt (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azeus Convene

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

the content appears to lack substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources; too many links with promotional or straightforward informational coverage Assirian cat (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Routine coverage for a brochure article, adveritising the company on Wikipedia. Fails WP:DEL14, WP:DEL4. scope_creep^Talk 21:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SoonFasting

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

Notability and sources problems; 5 best apps and similar sources aren't good. Assirian cat (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear cut COI PROMO issue 87.74.193.124 (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No neutral WP:RS sources and clear advertising, WP:PROMO. Zefr (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Psych characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Vick

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

There is only one reference, which is not a very reliable one at that. A quick search doesn't show much for analysis or anything meaningful about this character. There is little value said here not already covered in List of Psych characters article. It should redirect there with only a very brief description of the character. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Did a quick search not finding anything else notable with name referencing the character Teddy012 (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Unreferenced plot summary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation

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

Dead/primary sources only, fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable, no secondary sources XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 12:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - borderline spam created by someone who got blocked for spamming at later time. May not meet NCORP, and as another justification, the article is so fluffy that start all over is also reasonable. Graywalls (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did my best to find independent sources. There are some sources confirming that the organisation exists and has been involved in at least one legal case, but that's weak for establishing notability. Following what Graywalls said, the article was created by a user who is indefinitely blocked since 3 March 2022 for advertising spam, and in six years since the article's creation on 5 May 2017 nothing much has improved in terms of sourcing. Boud (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Ross Ventures

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

Nominated per IP userrequest: Non-notable fund. All sources indicate only the investment rounds of this fund and are news. Many of the sources duplicate each other and are clippings from interviews, and the contents are press releases. 2A00:1FA1:4347:268B:8C87:6A2C:79F4:A69A (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Submitted by: UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does lack of references of a source make it not worthy? New to wiki. Teddy012 (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For good information on what is needed, see both the WP:golden rule and WP:Notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this fails to meet CORPDEPTH. The non-press releases/business churnalism sources, like the NYT piece, refer to Fort Ross Ventures only slightly and in the context of Russian funding; it's not significantly about Ventures themselves. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Zubrycki

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

Hopelessly promotional autobiographical spam. Blow it away and let someone independent start over. Note that the author has repeatedly removed the autobiography tag from the page but has self identified as the subject. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am in the process of editing entry to make it less 'promotional'. Have added links to film referred to in "writing/directing career". Over the next 7 days will check and add references and citations. I would like to take on board any suggestions to improve this entry. Thanks Tzub (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of promotional in quotes suggest you disagree or don't understand. You need to immediately stop editing this article about yourself, if things have gotten so bad you end up at AfD, the game is up. Read WP:COI right now. You risk not only complete deletion of your Wikipedia profile, but public embarrassment - oh look the guy who got into a pissing match at Wikipedia because he was editing his own article. Duffbeerforme is right, let other people edit the article, this is how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not your CV or place in history, it's whatever people besides yourself want to say - that's why it's valuable. You have your own website to write about yourself. There are so many problems with your article clearly you don't understand the norms and rules of Wikipedia, or flaunt them, either way it will not go well for you if you continue this way. -- GreenC 15:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Give the initial state of the article, I can totally see the nom's position. I went ahead and removed everything that doesn't have a reliable secondary source, cutting the article size in half (not quite TNT). I removed all the inline external links to film databases and TZ's website. With all that done, there is still enough evidence of notability per GNG, the topic itself is notable, as was even suggested by the nom ("let someone independent start over"). The article is salvageable, so long as Tom can leave his Wikipedia article alone, even if he doesn't like it, or finds it's incomplete. If Tom has sources he should post them on the talk page with suggested edits. If he continues to edit the article I will report it to the COI Noticeboard. -- GreenC 15:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The quote from the film encyclopedia seems solid, this also helps [39]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There have been two relistings without any additional comments so I'll just close this now as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadrakali High School

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

Since the last AfD, there is now no inherent notability of high schools. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The old AfD doesn't seem to have been linked, so for ease of reference it is here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhadrakali High School, Gokarna. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am no fan of pages that are stubs after many years, and neither am I fan of ideas of automatic notability, but I think this is the wrong school to test that on. It is mentioned in one scientific paper and a lot of books. Some of these, such as [40] confirm the detail that it is one of the oldest (the book says the oldest) in the region. There are apparently notable ex pupils etc. This looks like it passes WP:GNG to me. It definitely needs attention, and a lot of it, but I can't, hand on heart, say I think this is not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add to this that I would like to put it beyond doubt by finding several sources that are clearly reliable independent secondary sources with significant mentions, but many of the mentions in books are passing mentions. There is this one, though, Survey Report, Part X-B, Series-23, West Bengal - Census 1981 which, despite its name, is a fuller report than just a census and tells us the school dates from the 19th century. For instance, it tells us:
"Again. Bhadrakali High School is the oldest institution in the entire municipal town, having been established in BhadrakaJi in 1824 as a Middle English school by the Christian Missionaries of Serampore. The present schoof was establishment in 1945 and got merged with the former Middle school. The school got affiliated as Higher Secondary institution in 1976. Shri Binod Behari Bhattacharya, an ex-Headmaster of this school, was honoured as a National Teacher. Shri Ajit Bugh. a teacher of this school, was elected as a Member 9f the Lok Sabha in 1982-87. Among other institutions in the town. Kotrung Bhupendra Smriti Vidyalaya has, in recent years. turned out to be one of the best schools in the region, so far as results of the Madhyamick Examination are concerned. A number of students of this school secured top places for a number of years."

This is clearly one source. For GNG we need multiple, but given the information there, I suspect more exist - except maybe not all of them in English. It looks notable to me, even though I haven't (yet) found additional sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There is a majority of rationales for deletion here, and they generally appear to be closer to policy. Black Kite (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Hossain Raju (professor)

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

The person in the article does not have significant media coverage to fill WP:GNG. Not meeting the requirements in WP:NACADEMIC as a professor, nor in WP:ENT as a film/documentary maker. Also, the subject appears to have a WP:COI with the article author. —MdsShakil (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bangladesh. —MdsShakil (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur with the nom; the subject fails GNG, NPROF, and ENT notability policies. UtherSRG (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review of the Wikipedia article on Zakir Hossain Raju. I appreciate your diligence in ensuring that articles meet the relevant Wikipedia guidelines.

I would like to address your concerns:

Notability (WP:GNG): Zakir Hossain Raju has made significant contributions to the fields of media and journalism studies, particularly in Bangladesh. While it's true that he may not have widespread international media coverage, he is recognized in academic circles, and his research papers are highly regarded in his field. Universities in bangladesh included this research paper as course-guided material (Books, Article, Research Paper).

Academic Notability (WP:NACADEMIC): While it is correct that Professor Raju may not be widely known outside of his field, within the academic community in Bangladesh, he is well-regarded for his contributions to media studies. The Prestigious Film Festival like Venice Film Festival, International Film Festival Rotterdam invited him as a jury chair in the asain film category. His books on cinema are widely available in Europe.

Entertainment Notability (WP:ENT): As a documentary maker and filmmaker, Zakir Hossain Raju may not be a household name, but his work has had an impact on the documentary and filmmaking landscape in Bangladesh. He has contributed to the cultural and artistic representation of his country through his films. His films were selected for festivals like the Busan Film Festival and others in the 1990s. So that the news and information about this matter are not on the internet.

Conflict of Interest (WP:COI): As the article author, I can confirm that I am not personally related to Zakir Hossain Raju and have no conflict of interest in creating or editing the article. My sole intention is to provide accurate and reliable information about a notable individual. And there is misinformation or delusions on the internet about the name; there is a filmmaker Jakir Hossain Raju with a similar name whose job is filmmaking. I myself got puzzled by searching the books of him (Zakir Hossain Raju). This is another reason why I chose this person to create an article about him. Since 2015, I have liked to contribute in Wikipedia in the area of cinema, I know my contribution to Wikipedia is nothing but a drop of water in this area.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that Wikipedia's notability guidelines allow for the inclusion of articles about individuals who are notable within specific geographic or academic contexts, even if they do not have international fame. Zakir Hossain Raju's impact in Bangladesh and his contributions to academic research make him a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article.

In summary, I believe that the article on Zakir Hossain Raju meets the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, and I would be happy to work with you to address any specific concerns or make improvements to the article as needed. Let's make Wikipedia more informative together!

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best regards,

Parbon CuriousCrafter 16:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be kept only when that person meets the notability criteria. You have to prove which points he passed and also provide reliable sources. —MdsShakil (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded his picture as your own work on Commons, so how can we assure that you have no WP:COI? —MdsShakil (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That has all the hallmarks of a ChatGPT authored screed. Polyamorph (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject's entry in Bengali Wikipedia, his entry in IMDb as well as his faculty profile in addition to the 13 inline cites appended to his English Wikipedia entry confirm notability. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bangla Wikipedia entry is also on AFD and was created by the same user. IMDB is not a reliable source, and the faculty profile doesn't seem to have any point; that could be passed WP:NPROF. The source mentioned in the article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV about him. —MdsShakil (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Spinner, I am baffled that someone with over 50,000 edits and almost two decades of experience could argue that a WP entry (regardless of which language it is in), an IMDb entry, and wikilinks constitute arguments in favor of notability. WP and IMDb are user-contributed sources, none of this means anything here. And a faculty profile is not an independent source and soesn't mean anything for notability either... --Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of a Wikipedia page in another language should never be considered as an argument to keep it in a different language. However, if we were to use that logic, note that the page in Bengali Wikipedia has now been deleted. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. agreed with @Roman Spinner 103.113.149.244 (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NPROF. I am not seeing any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
news from The Daily Star, Bangladesh Post, Dhaka Tribune, etc. and ISBN/DOI ID, festival website mentions are not independent, reliable sources? What are the reliable sources, I wonder? There are a bunch of bengali news, journals, and book publications of/about the subject on the internet; I didn't cite here for the English readability. CuriousCrafter 14:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I opened the refs and it passes BASIC. Desertarun (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add. 5 refs have been added since the start of this afd, so the ref count is now 18. Desertarun (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Count is irrelevant. Quality is what matters when it comes to notability. An assertion of notability must include (at least three?) references that each have these qualities: reliability, independence from the subject, and provide significant coverage of the subject. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will try. Ref 1 & 2 = profile, Ref 3 = passing mentions, Ref 4 = review of his one book, Ref 5 = unreliable, Ref 6 = passing mentions, Ref 7 to 13 = written by subject Zakir Hossain Raju himself, Ref 14 & 15 = passing mentions, Ref 16 & 17 = profile, Ref 18, 20, 21 = usual news e.g. Raju hands award to Japanese filmmaker, Ref 19 = ?, Ref 22 = passing mentions. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject has an h-index of 5 and cannot find anything about him which would lend me to believe he meets any of 8 criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. He would also not meet WP:NFILMMAKER as these do not even appear to be notable films. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a lot of books to his name, potentially satisfies WP:NAUTHOR. neutral h-index is not a good indicator of anything in the humanities (or indeed any subject, as it is easily manipulated through self citations or publishing in junk journals). Potentially statisfies 5. and 6. of WP:NACADEMIC (head of department, dean, founding director...of various institutes). Polyamorph (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

edit:changed to 'neutral', not as many books as I first thought, several chapters and research articles. Does have some coverage in independent reliable sources, not sure if it's enough. Polyamorph (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as head of a department, full professor, and journal founder. I'm hesitant to support based on judging a film festival, which is not a factor and, from my insider knowledge of other film festivals, is often done from friendships and horse-trading, rather than ability to judge anything. Coverage per SIGCOV is somewhat weak, but he still passes the Prof test. Bearian (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, I don't see the "journal founder", can you please clarify? --Randykitty (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being full professor or head of a department is not enough to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG is not met either. --Randykitty (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see a pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. He's one of only a handful of academics writing about Bangladeshi cinema. Unfortunately that hasn't resulted in his work (one book based on his PhD thesis and various chapters and journal articles) being highly cited. And I agree with আফতাবুজ্জামান's source assessment. So doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bestshoring

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

The Clinton source is not enough to make this notable Chidgk1 (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:DICTIONARY The is lifted from a Hillary Clinton opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, which is also under External Links. A Google search of the term results in the exact same wording, but nothing else. — Maile (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Neologism, and not one that seems to have caught on. It's a whitewash of offshoring, for which we have an article, so this article strikes me as a pointless POV fork. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

24 (Turkish TV channel)

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

I looked at the Turkish article and although it has sources and a lot of history it does not really explain how the channel is notable amongst the hundreds of Turkish TV channels Chidgk1 (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Pocock, artist

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

No evidence of notability found, the one source with biographical info is an amateur website, and I can't find any reliable source which gives significant attention to this Edward Pocock(e). Fram (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and England. Fram (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This artist meets criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST; his work is included in the permanent collections of several notable museums. Netherzone (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above.Leutha (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- If taken literally, like here, that is a rather ridiculous rule. Even if some objects are kept in the depots of rather local museums and aren't on display, and are just catalogied but not further described or noted, it supposedly means that the artist is notable? The British Museum, for instance, has eight million objects, not every artist who has an object in that collection is notable (even though the British Museum is way more important than the musea listed here). The very least one would need to meet this criterion is being (semi-)permanently on display, not just hidden in storage. Fram (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The Norfolk Museums holds over 30 pieces of his work in their permanent collection. (These can be viewed by performing an advanced search of their collections online). Netherzone (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which isn't an answer of course. "Norfolk Museums Service holds over three million objects"[41], being included in these collections is as such not a sign of notability. Fram (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    According to our guidelines for notability of Creative Professionals it is. This artist is in the permanent collections of several notable museums. Netherzone (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've raised the question at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:ARTIST #4. Fram (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I've responded there. Netherzone (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- His importance is underlined by the reproduction of his work in historical books, such as Great Tooley of Ipswich published by the Suffolk Records Society. They often provide images of buildings which sometimes are no longer standing or have been substantially altered. Leutha (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Netherzone. --SouthernNights (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NARTIST per above. I'd also comment that it is unreasonable for wikipedia articles notability to be subject to a potentially ever changing count of whether an artwork is on display or not - which is why I expect the SNG primarily requires presence in multiple collections. ResonantDis_tortion 20:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow per all of the above. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article is kept, I think it should be be moved to Edward Pocock (artist) --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agreed. I had the same plan - but we can't do that until after the Afd is resolved. ResonantDis_tortion 22:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:NARTIST #4.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack F. Campbell

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

Fails WP:BASIC. No significant mentions in reliable independent sources. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Additions of reliable sources. Teddy012 (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced non-football/soccer name search. I’ll amend sources. I guess it’s different from State Attorney office. Thanks AB. Recommend delete Teddy012 (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Teddy012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Additional sources about influence added Jc6828a (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 09:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 09:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 09:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Jack F. Campbell is so non-notable that the article has to use deceptive referencing to puff up the subject:

- reference 1 - Politico - cited to support Campbell's claim that "He is a policy influencer".

Politico's article quotes a totally different Jack Campbell, in this case a state attorney

- reference 2 - cited to support Campbell's claim to be a "published commentator on the American Aerospace Defense industry".

This is just Campbell's self-published assessment of Lockheed Martin's stock on the crowd-sourced Seeking Alpha stock-picking website.

- reference 3 - Tallahassee Democrat newspaper article includes the name "Jack Campbell" on a list of 500+ signed up to attend a Tallahassee Chamber of Commerce meeting.

Except it's that other Jack Campbell, the state attorney.

- reference 4 - another self-published Seeking Alpha piece about a defense contractor.

- reference 5 is the basis for Campbell's claim to be a military officer - his promotion to First Lieutenant in 2021. That's an officer rank typically attained by someone two years after leaving officer training. It's certainly an honorable job but it's such a low, low rank that it's painful to see someone using it to support their Wikipedia article.

- reference 6 cites the U.S. Embassy to the Philippines, Joint Military Assistance Group's webpage.

Campbell's name is not on this page.

- reference 7 cites a long Wall Street Journal article about a US Marine unit's preparations near Taiwan.

Campbell's name is not in this article.

In several hundred AfDs, I haven't seen such egregiously deceptive sourcing. If I were Mr. Campbell, I would be so embarrassed to get caught out like this. I'd hope Google won't index this AfD page for the general public to find. I'd worry about the state attorney's reaction if he (the other Jack Campbell) learned about this article. But that's just me; I don't think these are likely concerns for Jack F. Campbell.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Message received apparently. [42] Pabsoluterince (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should have been speedied. Deb (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A. B.'s source assessment, clearly fails WP:GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wendell Roche

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wendell Roche

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

Non-notable fighter. Does not meet criteria for WP:NKICK. Passing mentions and event results are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG Lethweimaster (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Caribbean. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: Could not find any significant coverage only event results, no mentions of him on sheerdog, article fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports) Lewolka (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no evidence that he was ever ranked in the world top 10, which is the requirement for WP:NKICK. I also found no significant independent coverage of him in reliable sources. There were plenty of fight results, but nothing that showed WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Government High School, Honagera

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

No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any sources. Sources from Google search gave me their facebook page, a primary source. The only source is a list that doesn’t even have significant coverage. Just because it has amenities doesn’t mean it is notable. Brachy08 _(Talk) 07:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most sources found via Google search are wiki-like websites, which fail WP:UGC. Only non-user generated source is this: [43]. However, a single website probably isn't enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. Liu1126 (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ leaning keep. Daniel (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carles Duarte i Montserrat

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

This highly decorated monument to the subject does not contain as much citation as decoration. No political elected role or appointment, scant assertion of notability as a poet or writer, no enduring impact on the arts as an artist - although has held a number of administrative roles in arts organisations. The first source in the article is sourced to an article based on Wikipedia, which is always an impressive achievement - but the second source is to Wikipedia itself, which rather trumps the first triumph. The third source is to a list of appointments, the fourth - Diari de Girona - is a routine appointment announcement (and identifies the subject as a regular contributor to Diari de Girona) while the fifth is the announcement of an award for "unconditional support" to the publications collected by the Catalan Regional Press Association. The final source, possibly the only contribution we have here to potential notability, is for "The poet and linguist Carles Duarte, president of the National Council for Culture and the Arts, has won the 2014 Ramon Fuster award for his civic, cultural and literary career." However I could find no evidence that the award itself (conferring 3,000 Euro) is itself notable. The subject's Catalan WP article is virtually unsourced, BTW. WP:BEFORE shows no body of critical review, no evidence we pass WP:GNG, let alone the four criteria of WP:ARTIST. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Poetry, and Spain. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i completely agree with all what you said, of course it is possible to find all references you ask for, but right now i haven't enough time to do it, so Ishall return it to user:mcapdevila and wait for better times with plenty of references..Thanks for your honest advice.. Mcapdevila (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article needs better sourcing but there do appear to be signs of possible notability, eg president of Catalonia Foundation, cofounder and "director" (whatever that neans) of Journal of Language and Law. There's a lot of publications; have none of them received reviews? Some of the awards might also be of interest, eg "Chevalier des arts et des lettres of the "French Republic"" -- is that Chevalier of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres?. There might be a problem with the name if sources call the subject "Carles Duarte"; there are 67 hits for this in Proquest search, but all I looked at were not in English. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- maybe more notable than the English article indicates. In the Spanish Wikipedia we can read:

Cargos ocupados Presidente de Fundació Catalunya (1983-1989) Secretaría General de la Presidencia de la Generalidad de Cataluña (1999-2003) Director de Fundació Carulla (2003-2016) President of Catalan Council for Arts and Culture (2012-2019) Director general de Institució Cultural del CIC (desde 2016)

These seem to add up to notability. Athel cb (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You have to dig a bit, but the good results show up on page 3 of the Gscholar resutls. [44] is a review from a Romanian journal circa 1990, covered in this book [45]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources dug up above. Also Chevalier of France's Ordre des Arts et des Lettres further helps make the case for this article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Thank you for the multiple source assessment tables, that was quite an effort. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sameh Al Tawil

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

This has got to be the most impressive example of Wikiwashing I have seen - a sleek article packed with citations, lots of detail, well formatted and generally looking just fine and dandy. Behind that excellent presentation lies a house of cards - sourced in the main to the subjects own website, with occasional incidental mentions as taking part in local/regional exhibitions with video installations, there is not one shred of notability, enduring impact, critical regard, monument, significant award or exhibition. Fails WP:ARTIST; WP:FILMMAKER. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Arts, Egypt, and Germany. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added more than 20+ reference articles from independent sources. The irony is that the person was nominated for deletion because I added only those that was written from a neutral point of view and made sure not to write the things that would promote himI would also like to tell this person is one of the most recognized New media artists in the middle east ..He already has a section written about him in the wikipedia - .Contemporary art in Egypt - Wikipedia i have added references from some of the most recognized references like from Al-Ahram - Wikipedia which is one of the oldest news page out there. some eg - http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/5/25/300120/Arts--Culture/Visual-Art/Egypts-second-edition-of-Cairotronica-probes-futur.aspx, https://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/ausstellung-nach-dem-kassensturz-1.3443658, http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsAFCON/2019/93085.aspx etc

Apart from that yes, he has won multiple awards and have attended International exhibitions in germany, saudi arabia etc.. :for Eg -'

01/2003(Endless journey) film “Kunst am boden” Exhibition ADBK Munich,

03/2002Participation prof. Brangenberg class Drawings-exhibition, in ADBK, Munich.

06/2003(Solo ll) Video, prof. Metzel class, year exhibition in ADBK, Munich,

2001-2004 participating in the annual exhibitions at the fine art academy in Munich(ADBK)

05/2023 Chaos ىضوف / within Nexus group exhibition in VerpachereiGö, Germany

10/1999 (Bronze sculpture) Workshop and Exhibition in Goethe Institut Cairo.

Here are the awards he had won -

Nile Salon photography prize 2012

Youth Salon Award (1999,2000, 2004)), a Small pieces Exhibition (2002),

ENPI Photography 2nd Prize 2010 and a commission from the Contemporary Art

Museum in Munich for the SOLO project (2003),

Cannes Lions Silver 2021, 2 Effie Awards 2017 &

2019, EME Award 2018,

Comprix Award 2018,

BestCss award,

AdsOfTheWorld 2020, Vuforia

Vision Award 2015.

Now, my main concern was i didn't write award since, it though it would promote him since i wanted to write it in a neutral point of view but since, it was nominated directly for deletion i will add all those things the nominator has requested Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I agree with the nominator that this is a misleading use of sources, using trivial mentions to make grand claims. For example, the article currently says that this person's "body of work is distinguished by its thought-provoking exploration of themes, notably freedom, religious identity, artistic identity, and human rights," which is sourced to a 3-sentence mention in an article about a group show, which mentions a single work (not a body of work), is a basic description of the work that does not describe it as anything like "thought-provoking," and makes no mention of anything like "freedom," "artistic identity," or "human rights." Elspea756 (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Since, my fellow colleagues tells that i used only trivial mentioning for that purpose i would like to prove that the sources that i used are not just trivial sources by mentioning each project with secondary sources links - please note that these projects are the reason why i mention that the sameh al tamil way of work is to show freedom, religious identity, artistic identity, and human rights (it's the overall perspective of the projects ..i didn't mention this randomly.. I would humbly request the fellow collegues to please go through the references proverly before casting vote here -

Reliable independent sources for Projects –

Video Installations -
1. Cupboard - https://universes.art/de/nafas/articles/2005/dar-al-hiwar
2. Visitors - AkademieGalerie 2004 - 2008 (in German). Academy of Fine Arts, Munich. 2009. p. 11. ISBN 978-3-932934-25-4.
3. A442Hz - https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsPrint/82223.aspx , Mekawei, Yara (2013). https://www.udrop.com/file/KNV1/A442Hz_-_AhhSixthFloor_Exhibition_Cairo_2013.pdf" (PDF). SIXTH FLOOR. pp. 54–55.
4. "Clockwise - https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsAFCON/2019/93085.aspx
6. Solo –(1) "LOOK AT THIS steht in Großbuchstaben auf der Zeichnung von David Shrigley, die ein schwarzes Rechteck zeigt" (PDF) (in German). 2021. p. 11. - LOOK_AT_THIS_Booklet_WEB.pdf https://www.udrop.com/KRjs/LOOK_AT_THIS_Booklet_WEB.pdf?download_token=e46b53aafb6e7de562664355562ec774a9520250ac380ac7e79dd4f30c8d3604

(2) another secondary source https://www.sammlung.pinakothek.de/en/artwork/Y0GRWlX4RX/sameh-el-tawil/solo

Art projects –

7. Slavery Document - https://universes.art/de/nafas/articles/2005/dar-al-hiwa

8. Vs Versa” - https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2013/05/cairo-culture-festivals-combine-art-politics.html - www.al-monitor.com. May 2, 2013. Retrieved September 29, 2023.

another secoundary reference - "Behind the image and Beyond," (PDF). Egypt Digital art Festival. 2013. http://teganbristow.co.za/?portfolio=amaze-johannesburg-2013

10. Not for sale - https://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/ausstellung-nach-dem-kassensturz-1.3443658

Moving Images –

11.IDEMixer - https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/5/25/300120/Arts--Culture/Visual-Art/Egypts-second-edition-of-Cairotronica-probes-futur.aspx

https://alarab.co.uk/%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%A7-%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%85-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA

12. Chaos - "Cairotronica 3rd edition at the factory and tahrir cultural center" (PDF). 2021. p. 111.

https://www.udrop.com/KNV5/chaos_-_Cairotronica_2021_Cataloge-compressed.pdf?download_token=40f43a70b71a197cfdb8ecdc8d542bde4996c449e3aad1cebfeca09eb77b7757

Please go through the secondary links and then cast your vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Sadique Hussain (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PROMO I am not finding any reliable sources for the biographical information presented. I can't find significant coverage or evidence that he is any collections. The article relies heavily on the artist's website. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elspea756 , @Alexandermcnabb and @WomenArtistUpdates Dear Colleagues, i do admit that he doesn't have alot of coverage through news articles publication and other way of references about his life.in general but he does have coverage about his each of his work he published. But saying that he doesn't have any other significant coverage other than his official website is wrong without proper prior research.

To show evidence here it is a peer-reviewed publication- LandEscape Art Review - December 2013 - land.escape Flip PDF | AnyFlip

In this Peer-reviewed publication Sameh Al Tawil has a coverage from page number 50 - 59. A total of 9 page worth of coverage ....it talk about his life, career and work. and explain in detail about his projects.

for your kind information "Landescape Art Review" meets the criteria and is considered a reputable source within the field of art and art criticism, Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of this article says just above that a self-written bio and interview in LandEscape Art Review is the absolute best source there is for this article. This unreliable primary (not reliable secondary) source describes themself as for "the advertising of works of art" and "selected works will be asked for a symbolic 15€ contribution." THIS IS PAID PROMOTION, not significant coverage in a reliable secondary source. DO NOT TAG ME IN ANOTHER RESPONSE AND DO NOT CONTINUE TO WASTE MY TIME. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, @Elspea756 I will not tag you anymore and as a matter of fact i only tag you once.The other was a reply to your comment. I would appreciate if you can watch your tone and not be rude ..I would suggest you to please use a little professional tone. I am not here to waste your time, ok? This is an Interview where the artist is explaining about his work and what does his art/video installations speak of, and this is not the best source in this particular article ..they are a lot of different secondary source as well. with a total of 10+ different source for different project mentioned in the article. Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment - It is also clearly mentioned that if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. - WP:BASIC and WP:NBASIC .. Also the person has won multiple awards and has been part of multiple exhibitions see the listed exhibition in the article and the award he won in the above discussion section. Most of the work the artist has done is his original work. Also i would like to mention that with regards to artist there is no dedicated page which give the criteria in detail (since it is failed proposal) as of now only a small paragraph that gives detail about the notability of the artist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(artists)_(failed_proposal) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Sadique Hussain (talk • contribs) 09:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Syed Sadique Hussain please be aware of WP:BLUDGEON and turn down the bold. You've made your case, you do not need to refute everyone else's opinions. Star Mississippi 13:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi Sure, I was giving my point with the guidelines but i will backout now. I have made my point and had spoken whatever need to be. Thank you for reminding me of that :-) Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful here. But please, no more rebuttals.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment: Here are the first 10 out of 35 sources, in a source assessment table as requested by Liz. Elspea756 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was an amazing amount of work to go to - thank you for your diligence! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Elspea756
https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsPrint/8288.aspx			Subject mentioned in half a sentence	✘ No
https://samehaltawil.com/	Subject's web site	Self-published source		✘ No
https://issuu.com/landescapeartpress/docs/landescape_art_review_-_december_20	Paid advertising. Source describes themself as for "the advertising of works of art" and "selected works will be asked for a symbolic 15€ contribution."	Paid advertising		✘ No
https://samehaltawil.com/about/	Subject's web site	Self-published source		✘ No
https://issuu.com/landescapeartpress/docs/landescape_art_review_-_december_20	Paid advertising. Source describes themself as for "the advertising of works of art" and "selected works will be asked for a symbolic 15€ contribution."	Paid advertising		✘ No
https://www.adbk.de/de/?option=com_acymailing&ctrl=archive&task=view&mailid=220			Subject's name just listed with 40+ other people	✘ No
https://www.udrop.com/KT8x/bruno_frank_and_sameh.pdf?download_token=a660363e8289ed38e1a8cdfcc82b70c6c1af900eca2f9c659054a6c50497d186			Blurry image of a newspaper article hosted on a file sharing site does not mention subject in headline and body of the article does not appear to discuss the subject in detail if at all.	✘ No
https://universes.art/de/nafas/articles/2005/dar-al-hiwar/dar-al-hiwar			Neither of the subject's names, "Sameh" nor "Tawil," appear on this page a single time.	✘ No
https://gate.ahram.org.eg/News/2351485.aspx			Three short sentences on the subject as part of a longer article about 100+ artists at an art festival.	✘ No
https://www.alroeya.com/130-42/2102182-%D8%A5%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%88%D8%A3%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84-%D9%87%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%83%D8%B4%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%89-%D9%81%D9%8A-%C2%AB%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%86%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9%C2%BB			Two short sentences on the subject as part of a longer article about multiple artists at an art festival.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

More source assessment: Here are sources 11 through 20 out of now 39 (4 more of these types of sources have been added since the last previous source assessment table). Elspea756 (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Elspea756
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bf1944a25bf02584d34fa6d/t/5c1974fe562fa783d99e0cfe/1545172230102/1702.pdf			Subject's name just listed with 40+ other people. This is the exact same list of 40+ people in a previous source, so serves no purpose other than spamming references.	✘ No
http://www.halle6.net/projekte			Neither of the subject's names, "Sameh" nor "Tawil," appear on this page a single time.	✘ No
https://universes.art/de/nafas/articles/2005/dar-al-hiwar			Subject's name just listed with 20 other people.	✘ No
https://samehaltawil.com/portfolio/visitors/	Subject's web site	Self-published source		✘ No
AkademieGalerie 2004	?	?	? Apparently a purportedly offline source.	? Unknown
https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsPrint/82223.aspx			Subject's name just listed with 150+ other people	✘ No
https://samehaltawil.com/portfolio/a442hz/	Subject's web site	Self-published source		✘ No
https://www.udrop.com/KNV1/A442Hz_-_AhhSixthFloor_Exhibition_Cairo_2013.pdf?download_token=9c4c6a6e705272cbb985b2927efb85e4743f50a50377082eb0c836baf9f9a406	PDF hosted on a file-sharing site, contains excerpt of text from subject's website.	PDF hosted on a file-sharing site, contains excerpt of text from subject's website.	Four sentences.	✘ No
https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsAFCON/2019/93085.aspx	Largely primary-source interview quotes from subject.	Largely primary-source interview quotes from subject.		✘ No
https://samehaltawil.com/portfolio/clockwise/	Subject's web site	Self-published source		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Even more source assessment: Here are sources 21 through 30 out of 39 sources. Elspea756 (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Elspea756
https://www.pin-freunde.de/foerderungen/erwerbungen/kunstwerk/solo			24 words	✘ No
https://www.udrop.com/KRjs/LOOK_AT_THIS_Booklet_WEB.pdf?download_token=8cf343511e5bfcc0d3ef53320bdf60b866fda751067fc9d57dfb6a12670a3509	Exhibition catalog statement likely written by the subject.	Exhibition catalog statement likely written by the subject.	3 sentences.	✘ No
https://samehaltawil.com/portfolio/solo-2018/	Subject's web site	Self-published source		✘ No
https://www.sammlung.pinakothek.de/en/artwork/Y0GRWlX4RX/sameh-el-tawil/solo			Directory listing, roughly 30 words.	✘ No
https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2013/05/cairo-culture-festivals-combine-art-politics.html			Three sentences.	✘ No
https://www.udrop.com/KNUx/VS.__Augmented_Reality_Live-__DI-EGY-FEST-Ex-BOOK.pdf?download_token=9630f8a8319f6d7f89c5a05d6f29673ba59e33093e04549a6350e7ec7d089e61	? Hosted on file-sharing site, says simply "File cannot be located, please try again later."	?	?	? Unknown
https://samehaltawil.com/2013/09/12/vs_amaze/	Subject's web site	Self-published source		✘ No
http://teganbristow.co.za/?portfolio=amaze-johannesburg-2013	Another person's self-published website on an event they did together.	Another person's self-published website.	Three sentences on the subject.	✘ No
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/ausstellung-nach-dem-kassensturz-1.3443658			Four sentences.	✘ No
https://samehaltawil.com/portfolio/not-for-sale-%D9%84%D9%8E%D9%8A%D9%92%D8%B3%D9%8E-%D9%84%D9%90%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%8E%D9%8A%D9%92%D8%B9%D9%90/	Subject's web site for the eighth time!	Self-published source, subject's web site for the eighth time!		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Even more source assessment yet: Here are sources 31 through 38 out of 38 sources. (A 39th source was removed by the article's creator.) Elspea756 (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Elspea756
https://samehaltawil.com/portfolio/chaos-%D9%81%D9%8E%D9%88%D9%92%D8%B6%D9%8E%D9%89/	Subject's web site for the 9th time!	Self-published source		✘ No
https://www.udrop.com/KNV4/Nexus_catalogue-_Chaos_and_al_tawil_biography.pdf?download_token=03a5ebcdfb1aceb205a782d0c536b75ffb41e0e14fe329aea0316053cc48cd49	Exhibition catalog statements likely written by the subject or those close to them.	Exhibition catalog statements likely written by the subject or those close to them.		✘ No
https://aawsat.com/home/article/2060726/%C2%AB%D9%85%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%%2084%D9%81%D9%86%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%20%D8%A9%C2%BB-%D9%8A%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%82-%D8%A3%D9%86-%D9%8A%D8%B0%D9%%2087%D8%A8-%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A3%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AF-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%%20D9%84%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%A9			Five sentences.	✘ No
https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/5/25/300120/Arts--Culture/Visual-Art/Egypts-second-edition-of-Cairotronica-probes-futur.aspx			Part of a single sentence listing seven people.	✘ No
https://samehaltawil.com/portfolio/idemixer/	Subject's web site for the 10th time!	Self-published source		✘ No
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-43859-3_8			A single sentence.	✘ No
https://alarab.co.uk/%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%A7-%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%85-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA			Three sentences.	✘ No
https://www.udrop.com/KNV5/chaos_-_Cairotronica_2021_Cataloge-compressed.pdf?download_token=cb15db6257fa543d411aab3040b96f9967123f924104128d959d4667b19e1ed2	Exhibition catalog statements likely written by the subject or those close to them. Text is similar to that on the subject's web site.	Exhibition catalog statements likely written by the subject or those close to them. Text is similar to that on the subject's web site.		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete: Based on the THREE source analysis tables, there is nothing remotely notable about this individual. PROMO. I can't find anything about his film work, the name is rather common so you get hits on anything and everything. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. While an argument could be made for a No consensus closure, those arguing to Keep this article have brought forth reviews that satisfy our notability standards for books. If there is a concern about COI editing, a discussion on that issue can occur on the article talk page or at COIN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Power Without Glory (2015 book)

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

I'm not convinced that this in any way meets the notability criteria for books. I only did a web search because it's a fairly recent book and that should produce good enough sources, but all I found was a review from the Victorian Historic Racing Register, which just ain't gonna cut it. The article was added by Tsrwright, the book's author, starting with this edit to the page about the notable novel with the same title, before it was split off later (also see this editor assistance request). I found out about this situation after the author contacted me because they were caught up in an IP block I'd performed. Graham87 (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your research didn't go too far, Graham. The book is covered in depth in the publishers website at www.loosefillings.com. It received an Award of Distinction 2016 from the Society of Automotive Historians. It was shortlisted for the UK Motoring Book of the Year awards 2106. It had numerous favourable reviews by the journals of record as listed at the above website.

The unannounced blocking of my log-in to Wikipedia for some years and the new proposal to delete mention of my book Power Without Glory ... was and would be unsatisfactory. Power Without Glory.... was the product of years of research and is the definitive account of its subject.

On the other hand I must point out that Wikipedia has many errors contributed by people who must have done little or no research. It should not be thumbing its nose at genuine contributors. Tsrwright (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, appreciate the desire to improve Wikipedia. Before making further edits to that article, you likely want to review our conflict of interest guidelines. Also if you like, take a look at the guidelines for reliable sources that we use to construct articles. If you can point us to further independent, reliable sources, such as professional reviews, it will aid in keeping this article. I would suggest not adding them to the article yourself due to the apparent conflict of interest. —siro χ o 06:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsrwright: You said that Graham's research 'didn't go too far', without providing any sources to show that Power Without Glory does actually meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Can you provide sources that you think meet one of these guidelines? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's an in-depth review from a magazine (Dixon, Mark, and David Lillywhite. 2016. Power without glory: Racing the big-twin cooper. Octane. [46]) —siroχo 06:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably not as in-depth as it first appears; that book is the first of eight to appear in that review, which can be accessed through The Wikipedia Library (neither of the others have articles ... though one of the authors there who specialises in books about racing, Tom Rubython, does have a page here ... so does Brian Sewell, though he's better known as an art critic). We just tend to be more likely to have articles about authors than their non-fiction books ... except in cases like Guns, Germs, and Steel. Graham87 (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The ProQuest link I provided (also accessible through TWL) is 416 words dedicated to this subject, I believe it's the same review as the one in the first image you linked in your next comment. —siro χ o 08:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- As for reviews of the book, the publisher's website has this and this. Being book of the month in Octane is the best of a bad bunch for asserting notability on Wikipedia. Graham87 (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Via your links, I saw [47] which has at 2 or 3 more reviews that would count towards GNG
  1. This in-depth review from The Automobile. [48][49].
  2. This in-depth review in Speedscene,[50] author is credited as "JS", probably credited at the start of the review section or on the masthead.
  3. This in-depth review by David Moore, publication unknown [51].
  There was also a review from VSCC Bulletin [52] that notes the author is a member of the club. It's probably usable in the article but may not be independent for our purposes.
  
  —siro χ o 08:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BOOKCRIT.C1 / GNG. Based on the above comments, we have two or more independent reviews in magazines with SIGCOV:
1. Octane ([53] or [54])
2. The Automobile ([55] and [56])
3. Speedscene ([57]).

—siro χ o 08:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reception section and reworked the article a bit based on the reviews above. Should be in a better state now. —siro χ o 08:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly ... surprised and kinda shocked with the precedent this kind of !vote sets. So all you need to do is write a book about a super-niche subject, get it reviewed favourably in a few specialty publications about said subject that are by no means of general interest, and, hey presto, it's on Wikipedia? This goes strongly against general precedent and just the general sense of coverage I get by reading other book articles in Category:Australian non-fiction books. To put it another way: if this book is kept, there are thousands of others that could plausibly get articles here that I'd never think to write about in a million years. OK I'll shut up now, but I couldn't let this go uncommented ... Graham87 (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding the reasonable requirement that people do not write their own reviews I submit that the entry should stand, or someone else write it because it is not a review, it is only a statement of fact. The title chosen was a play with the title of a book which was called 'The Power and the Glory which was about grand prix racing cars - the cars I was writing about had lots of power for their weight but didn't have any glory. That left me with a title which was the same an Australian novel of no particular merit by Frank Hardy which does have space on Wikipedia. There I wrote a short footnote explaining that there was another book with the same title and it was about Cooper racing cars. They-who-must-be-obeyed objected and deleted my footnote so I wrote a short separate entry. I feel Wikipedia should provide in some way for their being ,multiple books with the same title. I must have a look- how it deals with The Power and the Glory. Tsrwright (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see there are numerous entries for 'The Power and the Glory' including such as The Power and the Glory (Bad Ends album). If a rock album could be listed then so should a well researched, award winning book. Tsrwright (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Wikipedia mentions the TV series The Power and the Glory but not the book. Tsrwright (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that helps Tsrwright (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, tbat helps TW

h Tsrwright (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you delete stuff? Tsrwright (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Power and the Glory (Bad Ends album) has much better sourcing from much more commonly used sources on Wikipedia than this book does and probably ever will. Graham87 (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are a few books with this name (the short name at least, as in the title of the article here). I can't find ANY reviews of this book about racing cars, most are for an Australian book. There appears to be one listed already in the article, seems fine. The others don't have a url so I can't evaluate them. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Urls are higher up in this discussion. —siro χ o 15:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention National Library of Australia Doug butler (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The National Library of Australia aims to contain pretty much every book published in the country. Graham87 (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hence irrelevant ? Doug butler (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand this bit of the discussion. The book is catalogued in publication by the Australian National Library and a copy is held there. It is listed on Worldcat at https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=ti%3APower+without+glory&limit=10&offset=11

There are copies in a number of libraries around the world. As previously noted it was favourably reviewed by the significant journals in its field, The Automoblile and Octane. Copies of these and other reviews appear on the publishers website at www.loosefillings.com but you do have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the home page .to find them but that doesn't take too long

I don't understand how there can be a vote for delete simply because one person can't find all the reviews. Perhaps the problem lies with this not being a subject of interest to some of the people here. Anyway, there is a Loose Fillings article on line that lists some of the other reviews dated 03/12/2015 such as the following

John Staveley in The Bulletin of the Vintage Sports Car Club

On first opening this heavy, well produced book it immediately becomes apparent that it is … a vibrant story of motor racing starting before the turn of the twentieth century but quickly moving on to post World War 2 airfield circuits.

… an important work, written in an entertaining style, beautifully illustrated and great value. What a good book! Highly recommended.

Doug Nye, author of Cooper Cars on the Nostalgia Forum (an Autocar online forum)

… here’s a beautifully-designed, very well-produced, highly detailed and sophisticated piece of engineering and sporting history—really well worth the money. Respect!

He has spread his remit to cover the entire background story of small capacity competition cars after much diligent research, and deals with the nativity of the 500cc movement itself in really interesting depth. I rate it as an important, hefty, and good looking addition to any real motor sport enthusiast’s book shelf.

John Medley, author of Bathurst – Cradle of Australian Motor Racing in The Oily Rag

This is a marvellous book. You should buy it. It is filled with fascinating detail, a clear story line, broad and deep in its history and humanity, astonishing in its memorabilia and automobiliana, the author’s research and footnoting a model for other writers, the author’s hands-on experience in the field impeccably unmatched … The book is well produced, thoughtfully designed, and too heavy to read in bed.

David Moore, Shelsley Walsh archivist in MAC News (Midland Automobile Club

This excellent book is so much more than the title suggests as it covers a wide motor racing history … the JAP and Vincent units are fully illustrated by the author who clearly knows his subject in great depth … Interestingly, the author not only describes the origins of the cars themselves but also paints vivid pictures of the motor racing, social and political scenes of their eras.

Jerry Sturman in Speedscene, journal of the Hillclimb and Sprint Association

Fills a significant gap in motorsport history … All enthusiasts will want to have this one on their shelves … Entertainingly written and superbly laid out … the book is a visual treat as well as being a meticulously researched, in-depth survey of the history and development of the motorcycle V-twin engine in competition.

Mike Cooper, Managing Director, Cooper Car Company Ltd

I have been buried in the book all weekend. It is a fascinating read and I am sure many other motor racing enthusiasts will really enjoy it. Tsrwright (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, for copies of published reviews go to www.loosefillings.com and select Power Without Glory in the top banner. Tsrwright (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reproduced in LooseFillings' blurb are: Full page review by Mark Dixon and David Lillywhite of Octane magazine (and voted "Book of the Month" for February 2016); Two columns by "SS" in Automobile magazine of January 2016; Half a page by "JRCS" in the Winter 2015 Bulletin of VSCC (of which Wright is a member); Two pages by Stephen Dalton in the Mini Cooper Register (date not given); and a half page by JS in SpeedScene (date not given). All British or Australian publications. The Doug Nye review alluded to is unfortunately not reproduced. Doug butler (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On further reflection, this book, like many in my library, is a reliable source for improving articles (as Wright) has so usefully contributed to the article on J. A. Prestwich Industries, but not yet part of the motor racing canon as are several by Doug Nye, none of which AFAIK is the subject of an article. Doug butler (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closer: Doug butler is the person who originally split the article into its own page. I'm adding this comment out of chronological order because I think it's far more important for closing this discussion than the comments by the book's author below. Graham87 (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Butler posted the separate article way back when, but after all these years he thinks it should be deleted! Tsrwright (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think whether or not Doug Nye books are mentioned on Wikipedia is the issue, Doug (Butler). Presumably nobody has put up information about any of Doug's books but that is hardly a reason for excluding my book which should be judged on its merits not by whether Wikipedia adequately covers other books.

I initially posted a brief note on the original Power Without Glory page that there was another book with the same main title and that simple fact surely ought to be on the record. When that was rejected by other contributors I created my own, very simple, factual record which is that which is now under discussion.

I have made some minor changes to the current page to better describe the book's significance in first documenting some of the key influences on the design of the modern racing car and I hope that helps. If that and any other changes are not good enough for Wikipedia's standards then just for the completeness of the facts something needs to be stated on the 'other' book's entry.

Meanwhile, back to Doug and the question of the source of his review of the book which I think was online. I don't have that reference but here is his personal comment by email back in 2015:

Extended content

*:On 6 November 2015 at 23:34, Doug Nye wrote:

WOW Terry,

Great piece of work. Just arrived. I LOVE it!

(redacted)

On 7 Nov 2015, at 02:26, Terry Wright wrote:

Thank you very much, Doug, I very much appreciate the kind words. How do you feel about me using a sentence of yours on my Facebook page ... ?

(redacted)

Your daughters certainly did a great job for you Terry. For your Facebook page by all means use anything you like. For example: “I was expecting a pretty basic agricultural old banger of a book - instead here’s a beautifully designed, very well-produced, highly detailed and sophisticated piece of engineering and sporting history - really well worth the money. Respect!”

Best - Doug

Tsrwright (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a summary of what secondary sources say about a topic, not what other people privately think of it. I have taken the liberty of hiding the email to hopefully make the discussion easier to read for everyone. If I've messed up the formatting while doing so, feel free to fix it.

As for the argument about precedent, this article is just ... way out of range of what is normal here. To make an analogy in a different topic, federal and state politicians are inherently notable here; the notability of this book compared to most non-fiction works on Wikipedia is like comparing the notability of the current Australian Prime Minister to a random council member of a small shire (let's pick on the City of Busselton where I live for an example). Newspaper coverage of said council member would only be restricted to the Busselton area except in extremely unusual circumstances, just as coverage of a book about a very niche topic like this one is only restricted to special interest magazines/websites about that topic. The essay Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill is tangentially relevant.

Also, Tsrwright, if I'd noticed your edits to the Power Without Glory novel page in 2015, I would have simply reverted them as self-promotion ... as would have many many other Wikipedia editors. You're lucky you're self-promotion lasted this long. Graham87 (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming a very twisted argument and I take exception to the statement, 'You're lucky you're self-promotion lasted this long'. I did not need a line or two on Wikipedia for promotional purposes; all I did was turn to Wikipedia simply to update its record of facts. I am not a philosopher so I have to rely on commonsense which tells me that just like the earth being round, it is a fact that this book meets the criterion of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Any other ideas such as 'self-promotion' and this being 'a book about a very niche topic' are simply opinion. It also suggests that what you regard as 'notable' is very much influenced by what you are interested in and that does not speak well of Wikipedia. Tsrwright (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having tagged a few australian motorsport article talk pages, and motorsport articles in my time, I find the lack of a broad set of WP:RS to substantiate the notability and it is sufficient argument to delete. There is nothing from this discussion above that convinces me otherwise. Admittedly book stubs are hard at times to find enough reviews in reasonable third party sources, but that should not be an argument to keep. JarrahTree 06:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Dixon, Mark; Lillywhite, David (February 2016). "Power without glory: Racing the big-twin Cooper". Octane. No. 152. p. 166. ProQuest 1777019207.
  The review provides 416 words about the subject. The review notes: "The sub-line on the front cover says 'Racing the Big-Twin Cooper' but this is so much more than that. It's better described in the blurb on the back: ... And actually, it's a bit more than that too, because in exploring the development of the first Cooper racing cars, and their predecessors in Great Britain and the USA, author Terry Wright also examines the conditions in which the populaces of the two countries were living before and after World War Two. All this turns what might have been a dry tome into a genuinely entertaining read. ... To help explain those racing scenes, Wright adds in fascinating social history of the period, which brings to life the wonderfully varied (and beautifully reproduced) archive pictures of cyclecars, midget racers and specials driven mostly sideways by their gung-ho owners, wearing little if no protective gear. For those images alone, the book is worth every penny of the £55 cover price. That it's a great read as well is simply a huge bonus."
2. Mallett, Delwyn (January 2016). "Power Without Glory: Racing the Big-Twin Cooper". The Automobile. pp. 83–84.
  The automobile historian G. N. Georgano said, "The Automobile is the only motoring magazine that I read from cover to cover. When it arrives, treat all other magazines are put aside until I have studied it thoroughly’." The review notes: "With the scene set, the latter part of Terry's book concentrates on racing and hill climbing in the UK and Europe from 1948. Event and personality photographs are outstanding, and include work by such photographers as Klemantaski. Terry's sense of history survives, with the rear-engine Benz representing Germany and the rather disturbing Elfe, France. One particularly evocative pair of shots shows manufacture under way in the Cooper garage, contrasted with the vast Brabazon assembly hall. A particular strength of the action shots is captions giving intelligent summaries of each driver's style and success or failure, while the main text goes into detail on performance and incidents during practice as well as in the event. ... The cover price of this book, not cheap for a specialised publication, is justified by the quality of production and breadth of coverage. Wright gives a balanced picture of the light racing car renaissance born, primarily, from a British willingness to get stuck in and build a car from available parts. To stand a chance, the result had to be a light, simple and economical racer which could be run successfully by amateurs in the face of more expensive and complex designs. Book and philosophy are recommended."
3. The other reviews listed by siroxo.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Power Without Glory: Racing the Big-Twin Cooper to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there might be some COI editing going on, focusing the discussion on the book's author and their activity on Wikipedia takes away attention from what this discussion should be about which is assessing the sources brought forward by editors who are participating here. Less personal talk, more source analysis would help close this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the posting by Cunard is a sufficient statement of the book's qualification for a Wikipedia entry. If the contents are relevant then I believe it further qualifies as 'notable' because it is an authoritative account of the largely undocumented origins and early development of the modern open-wheeled racing car. Tsrwright (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- As the author of the book, you have little standing to make such comments. [[Notability on Wikipedia is not about how a work fills a niche; it's about whether it's received enough attention from the world at large to get an article here. As the nominator of this discussion, I don't think it has. I think the cited reviews are too specialised to really assert notability here. While researching the publisher, I noticed that the book's author helps run the publishing company,, making this book effectively self-published. I also question if there are any relationships (even monetary ones) between the book's author, publishers, and reviewers that may make the reviews less independent than they appear; the book's in a tiny niche, after all. I also notice that the notability criterion about reviews that this AFD hinges on has been strongly questioned in the past; I've mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) to find out if we can get some more input. Graham87 (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It appears from my reading of it that the discussion on deleting the criterion of two reviews ended in 2020 with numerous votes against change so surely that matter was dealt with then. Bear in mind that the book in question, of which I am the author and one of the publishers, had reviews from at least two (there might have been three, I forget) of the leading independent journals plus a number from lesser but still independent journals as well as one undisputed authority. It might also be noted that these reviews were laudatory as well as there being an award from the Society of Automotive Historians. As far as I can tell the 'notability' criterion has been met. That being so, deletion should require evidence that diminishes that notability but so far there has been none other than a claim, such as above, that this book is in a 'tiny niche' which I dispute. That raises the question is how large does a niche have to be for the book not to be excluded from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is full of niche information, tiny and otherwise, and surely that is one of its strengths. Tsrwright (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  By the way, there are no relationships monetary or otherwise between the book's author and publisher (who were in Sydney, Australia), and the reviewers who were mainly in England. As wisely stated earlier, less personal talk, more source analysis would help close this discussion. Tsrwright (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:COI editing is a red herring that can be dealt with at other venues. It seems to have been demonstrated already in this discussion that the article's subject meets the WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I do intuitively lean towards deletion but I won't cast a !vote as I am inexperienced when it comes to writing about books and this is really a "vibe of the thing" argument. Something just seems a bit off to me about a book being able to qualify for an article with two reviews, especially when those reviews are drawn from specialist motorsport sources rather than general media.I suspect there is something more to the "non-trivial" standard than what has been brought up in this discussion. This just doesn't seem like the sort of book I would expect to have a Wikipedia article, but it wouldn't be the first surprise this site has given me. I'm also a bit disgruntled by the author's behaviour on the Autosport forums. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Getting personal again! If you have something to say to the Nostalgia Forum you should say it there. Tsrwright (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No Terry, I have no obligation to engage with you off Wikipedia. However, your conduct there suggests you are not here to build an encyclopaedia. But as you've been so eager to stress, you're not the topic of this discussion, the article is, so perhaps focus in, back off, and respect the processes of the editing community instead of talking shit on the Autosport forums. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5225C's comment I'm also a bit disgruntled by the author's behaviour on the Autosport forums surely has no place in this discussion with the perjorative use of 'behaviour' as if I have somehow done something wrong. I can only assume that as the author of the above talking shit on the Autosport forums his were the comments deleted by the moderators in a discussion on Wikepedia's notability requirements for articles on books 5225C is a university student and given his rekarks above, I am surprised that he or she has any status on Wikipwedia. Tsrwright (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  his or her remarks Tsrwright (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I said what I said, escalate it if you like. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More source weighing is needed. If there are conduct issues, please raise at AN/I or other appropriate venue. Tswright, I would advise that you've made your case. You do not need to reply to every editor's input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and agreed, but Wikipedia people should cut out the personal comments as previously requested. Tsrwright (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In-depth and reliably published reviews have been listed above. That is all that is needed for GNG. That some editors think the topic and the reviews specialized is irrelevant; that is not part of the GNG criteria. If you think this sort of topic should not have an article, you need to change the notability criteria to be based on something other than the existence of in-depth reliable independent sources, rather than pretending that those sources somehow don't count for reasons that are not part of the criteria. (Here from a neutrally-worded pointer to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books).) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's hardly a better reason to have an article about a book than substantial reviews in appropriate publications. XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HumanBodyPiloter5, David Eppstein, and XOR'easter. GNG trumps SNGs such as WP:NB, which itself says "A book that meets ... the general notability guideline ... and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article". ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darfur campaign

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

No updates or evidence of a campaign Jebiguess (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Is there any evidence of a true "campaign" in Darfur? This page has been up since the beginning of the war in Sudan, and seldom edited since. There are only two battles mentioned, the battle of Geneina and the battle of Nyala, capitals of West and South Darfur respectively. The other city mentioned is Kabkabiya, which hasn't been edited to even mention a link for it's page, and the only incident in Kabkabiya was the killing of three WFP staff early in the war.[reply]

Other Darfuri cities and capitals, such as Zalingei, Ed Daein, and El Fasher are not mentioned in the article, with the latter mentioned in the infobox. Cities like Kutum, Sirba, Misterei, Kubum, and others are also not mentioned at all, likely due to the lack of editing on this page.

While all of these issues can be solved with a ton of editing, what is the big picture here? There is no evidence showing that there is a connected military campaign by the Rapid Support Forces or Sudanese army in Darfur, with goals of capturing one town to move to the next. In state capitals, with the exception of Ed Daein, the pattern has been a siege or attempted siege by RSF/Janjaweed against a garrison of Sudanese forces, with varying degrees of success. This is no different than El Obeid or parts of Omdurman for that matter, so why is Darfur singled out? For non-capital cities like Kutum and Misterei, it's primarily been local militias against the Janjaweed, which are moreso Arab tribal fighters than coordinated RSF.^[1]

Essentially, I'm proposing this page be deleted because it was WP:CRYSTALBALLing the War in Sudan, and that there's little evidence of a coordinated campaign by any side, nor is the military tactics used any different than other regions of Sudan (with the exception of Khartoum due to urban warfare).

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Sudan. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Missing updates and not being complete is not a cause for deletion + not sure about if WP:CRYSTALBALL fits/applies here as the article is not what nom propose. In essence, the page refer to the fight in the Darfur region during the War in Sudan (2023). Many sources use similar wording to describe warring in the region, see UN Dispatch, AP, The New Humanitarian and Progressive. We might need to start discussing moving the page to War in Darfur (2023) FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It just needs updating, thats alll Lukt64 (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Things

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

Now here's the thing: this whole construct/concept is a piece of IBM 'thought leadership', and a phrase coined by IBM - and promoted by the company - in the pursuit of commercial goals. So I nominated it for G11, and it was then sent to draft. Now it's back and it's STILL problematic. I'll quote here from the G11 template, "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." (my bold)

So here we have an article about an idea and associated catchphrase that solely serves IBM - sourced to IBM, the opinions and/or op-eds of its staff and a couple of non-IBM sources dealing with tangential concepts that have been accepted into the mainstream. It's promotion, plain and simple.

If speedy is declined and the draft mainspaced by its author without addressing the fundamentally IBM-centric nature of the whole idea (hard to do - again from G11, "would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic.") then I would suggest the only possible outcome is deletion. You could redirect to IBM but then that gives IBM effective ownership of the phrase on Wikipedia... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree at least that this falls under "other content not suitable" at the moment . Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not believe any of the content currently in the article is suitable to merge into internet of things, however, I would not object to a redirect with history kept if a mention is worked into that article without being contrived. With regards to anti-corporate bias, I believe it's reasonable to take a harder line against commercial promotion versus the "I'm a fan of this" type of promotion, and I believe that this is supportable by the spirit of our PAG. See the difference between COI and PAID or GNG and CORP for example. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The whole article is just an IBM promotional piece. The sources are weak too - two are primary sources directly from IBM, a Forbes article that turns out to be sponsored content by IBM, a press release and a promotional brochure by Vodafone, a blog post by whatever the hell Peaq is, and pieces by other businesses that aren't reliable sources. Delete the whole thing. No redirect either, because as Alexandermcnabb correctly pointed out, there isn't enough independent coverage to grant IBM ownership of this phrase on Wikipedia. Cortador (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As @Seraphimblade: said in this article - Not really a G11, but not mainspace ready either; reads more like an essay than a summation of references. Will move to draft. I did a total rewrite of the article as recommended to me. Certainly this article cannot be classified as a promotional article, as it comes from reliable sources and is a viable wikipedia topic.--Zytty (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable source? Cortador (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources available in the article, including the following Techradar,Techtimes, Rcrwireless, [58], [59], Thesundaily, Businessinsider...and many other newspapers, books mentioning the name of the article. Zytty (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus on TechRadar, RCR Wireless News, or The Sun Daily, TechTimes was deemed unreliable, Economic Times was deemed unreliable as they apparently don't always mark sponsored content, and Business Insider also apparently doesn't always mark syndicated content as per Wikipedia's lost of perennial sources. The single reliable source here is Sensor. Cortador (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get 'Sensor'... sorry, slow bear... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Sensors (journal), which is the source for the PubMed link. Being a MDPI journal, reliability is... debatable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, PubMed - gotcha. Thanks. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sensors is the journal the PubMed article Zytty linked to above is in. It's peer-reviewed, so that is one actually reliable source in a group of dubious ones. Cortador (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Alpha3031's comment above, I did have a closer looks at MDPI. Their Wikipedia article is 75% controversies. Wikipedia is not a source, of course, but maybe we should have a second look at what they publish, as MDPI has been alleged to be a predatory publisher, and have some level 0 journals. Cortador (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to I did a total rewrite, I have to say when people say total rewrite, they do not usually mean going through 6 of the 20 paragraphs with a thesaurus while keeping the semantic meaning of each clause nearly identical (or at least, substantially similar). If there is any appropriate redirect destination, it would probably be internet of things rather than IBM, which I hesitate to suggest as such while it does not mention the concept. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Buzzwordy and promotional; all sources I could find were either not independent of IBM/Peaq or were breathless opinion pieces that made me instinctively cover my wallet. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be you practising the economy of things, right there... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief summary into internet of things. A search found a couple of papers section 2, The digital economy of things and [60], and a chapter in a book, The Economy of Things. These in addition to the Sensors article mentioned above show discussion of the concept independent of the original IBM source. IMO the sources confer marginal notability, but as a concept discussed in reliable sources, the topic is solidly verifiable. As the EoT concept is discussed in the context of IoT and indeed depends on them, a brief summary in the internet of things seems the appropriate target. That preservation of verifiable material is preferred over deletion is our Wikipedia policy (see WP:ATD and WP:Preserve). I also think we need to be sensitive to systemic bias in Wikipedia, in this case an anti-corporate bias. If an academic had first come up with the concept of EoT, I suspect we would not be having this discussion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 13:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but an academic wouldn't be leveraging the coinage of the concept for commercial advantage, would they? And the issue I see - 'anti-corporate bias' apart, is that using a Wikipedia article to help mainstream/cement a 'thought leadership concept' driven by a corporation is an abuse of Wikipedia. Getting back to the nomination, "...it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea." In other words, it's "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course an academic would leverage the coinage of a concept for personal gain! Such leverage would increase their reputation or notoriety and increase citations, leading to better chances of success in getting grants, corporate funding, and promotions at work. With respect to the nomination, the origin of a topic doesn't matter--if a topic is discussed in enough depth in reliable sources, that is verifiable information, possibly notable, and is suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia. My suggestion of merging a brief summary from RS both preserves verifiable information and can easily remove any advertising and hype problems. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, 'The Economy of Things' book you linked to is a) self published and b) by a gentleman called Enamul Haque who, we would fervently hope, is not the same Enamul Haque employed by IBM India. So we're really back to square one - find a reliable source that does not originate with IBM and this attempt to coin a phrase to use in a 'thought leadership' campaign. We come back to the same basic point - this article has G11 splashed all over it in nice, blue lettering... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good find on the book source, agreed it isn't independent. But not back to square one at all--the other three sources (the two articles and the Sensors article) are independent RS (AFAICT) and are fine for verification of basic facts and merging a brief summary. I still see no compelling argument for deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little skeptical on the conference proceedings by the way. Leaving aside for the moment whether AWK AACHEN is fully peer reviewed for the moment, it doesn't seem to be on the same topic as what IBM proposes? Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge an article that must be on wikipedia.--Tristancr (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion on the chance that there is some content here that is worth Merging. I have no opinion on the ultimate fate of this article, I just don't want to be quick on the delete button here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More than enough hits in Gscholar discussing this thing, I would give it a pass. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus here. Just editors with very different assessments of this article and its sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the newly-created article does too much repeating of IBM marketing claims in Wikipedia's voice to be kept. Also, I don't see any good references; when I did a Google Scholar keyword search, most of the hits were unrelated to the IBM-coined topic. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep however the material in the article is easily verifiable by the sources present, fully supporting Mark viking idea.--Nimorinka (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge per Mark viking) it seems like this is somewhere between an IBM promo and WP:CRYSTALBALL. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 04:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is far too early to tell if this new buzzy phrase will be adopted or where precisely the "Characteristics" section really comes from. There are no independent sources and we should be deeply suspicious of topics where the content is provided by companies invested in the success of the topic. The topic is simply promotional and even if it is destined to take off as a separate industry segment, WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL applies. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Froge.mp3. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Words (Piri & Tommy song)

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

It doesn't look like any of the sources in the article both provide sigcov on the song and meet WP:NSONG's requirement of a qualifying source being fully independent of the artist and team. I'd suggest a redirect to Froge.mp3. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Froge.mp3 as suggested above. Agree that it doesn't have sigcov. Also, there are plenty of bigger artists that don't have articles for songs. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 14:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Froge.mp3 per the above. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I leave the rename to editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 01:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badr Brigade in the Jordanian Army

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

Stub of dubious notability; may be out of date. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Jordan, and Palestine. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly exists (or existed). I've added a reference. And brigades are clearly notable. Rename to Badr Brigade (Jordan). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now notable thanks to Necrothesp's reference.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Fasano (musician)

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

Redirected as AtD, reverted and here we are. Not independently notable, rock drummer. No SIGCOV in RS, no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO; WP:BANDMEMBER ("Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability."). Thanks to WP:BEFORE I now know that Mike Fasano is the Tax Collector of Pasco County, Florida. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and California. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Fasano has worked with bands such as Guns N' Roses, Stevie Nicks, Warrant, Tiger Army, and Rancid. Just because this particular Wikipedia user doesn't feel he's notable enough is not a valid reason for deletion. --Tweakofnature (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tweakofnature: I don't have a strong opinion here, but Alexandermcnabb explained their rationale very clearly and cited WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:BANDMEMBER. Please address those points and arguments rather than insinuating that Alexander is nominating this article for no reason. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 12:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very valid reason for deletion, the simple fact that there are no mentions of him in sources is further proof of that. He hasn't headlined a major concert, sold a Grammy winning album or charted in Billboard. He's a working musician with a long career, but that's not enough for notabilit here.Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources found, the article basically says he's a session drummer, so not likely to be notable. The lack of sourcing is proof of that. What's given in the article now isn't sufficient. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I do think the staff written article in Modern Drummer magazine is one piece of significant in-depth RS on the subject. However, it is the only the in-depth reliable source after a WP:BEFORE search. There are a number of self-published blogs with significant coverage of the subject, but for GNG purposes I wouldn't count these, and there are also profiles in publications or websites for which the subject has either worked as a writer on music or as a promoter of drum equipment. These lack independence. There are many passing mentions of the subject in a variety of publications from concert reviews in newspapers and magazines to books with coverage of recordings. The subject has recorded and performed with a wide range of notable bands. In my personal opinion, the body of work in the recording side of things is encyclopedic worthy, however, the sourcing just isn't extent at present to justify an article. Hence a "weak delete".4meter4 (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Bonner Allen

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

Was unable to de-orphan. Created by a single-purpose account. Sources seem weak and mostly about her projects and nothing about her. Parts of her bio seem lifted straight from imdb. She did win a Royal Television Society Award though. Other than that I'd say it barely scratches WP:ANYBIO œ^™ 06:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. œ^™ 06:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She seems to work as "Liz Allen" which is so common that finding sources will be tricky. There's several long reviews of Inside John Lewis in good-quality sources (incl Guardian & Independent) already in the article. I think it is possible this is a poor article on a notable subject. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Some more reviews: Inside John Lewis in The Times[61] (paywalled); Silverville in Guardian[62]; Parking Mad: Guardian[63] (the last doesn't mention her except in credits). Espresso Addict (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Chang

AfDs for this article:

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

Blogger/podcaster fails WP:GNG; has no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Rift (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Mooonswimmer 15:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Beniwal

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. The references on the page and what I find online all fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA with bylines indicating they are press pieces or have no editorial oversight. CNMall41 (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Everyone I would like to participate in this discussion on wether to keep this article or not, Firstly I have created this article Harsh Beniwal because he is a popular youtuber in India, and his YouTube channel have more than 16 Million subscribers (including his second channel) and also his views are more than 1.8 Billion, which is a huge number I think and he also worked in a Superhit Indian film Student of the Year 2. I also believe that he has not proper coverage in Indian News Media, but I think that he may be notable for wikipedia. Thank you WikiAnchor10 (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no have any reliable source, some source are gossip material Worldiswide (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Deleted in previous AFDs so Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much coverage in reliable sources and views/subscribers don't really contribute to notability. His award and his film roles are minor. Mooonswimmer 14:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and salt). Still fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG acting roles were minor fails WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Johnson-Cochran

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

Sources on the page and those I find online are simply mentions. There is one in-depth source in the Chicago Tribune I found but on closer examination it is a press release. There is also content on the page (some of which I removed) which is not supported by the references provided. Lots of bold claims as well which I cannot verify from a reliable secondary source. CNMall41 (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. CNMall41 (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete No significant coverage, couldn't verify a few claims in the article His film Love and Action in Chicago has received some critical attention and is borderline notable, but I'm not sure it's enough for him to fulfill WP:CREATIVE. Mooonswimmer 15:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of browser synchronizers

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

Massively-outdated comparison of a tiny number of entries on a non-notable subject, compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of DNA melting prediction software (Browser synchronization is not a notable subject) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browser synchronization. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If "browser synchronization" is not a notable subject then there's no need for this list, and as nom pointed out, it's likely outdated and obsolete anyway. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Mooonswimmer 15:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The technology is effectively a checkmark for most browsers now with few requiring third-party tools to sync settings any longer, and these are for the most part depreciated tools. Nate • (chatter) 16:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I take issue with the claim that Browser synchronization is not a notable subject. The cited discussion had input from one other editor and they advocated a merge, not the redirect that happened. Here are a few recent sources establishing notability of the topic: [64]], [65], [66]. The fact that the article is out of date is not a reason to delete it. If a list article is not desireable here, the good content in the list could be merged into a restored Browser synchronization article. ~Kvng (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see the article was actually created to compare standalone software in 2006 when there was no sync feature in browsers but it's evolved into comparing browser features now. The thing is, it's a standard feature now and pretty much same in all browsers and there is not much to compare anymore anyway, it looks useless now. Tehonk (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Głusza, Wałcz County

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

On GMaps this locates to the driveway of a single property whose exact nature I can't make out, but it's obviously not a village/town/whatever. The first reference is to Registr TERYT, whose English language front page describes its mission in terms that show it is exactly analogous to GNIS; the other reference appears to be a statistical/geographical database of a sort familiar to those who have checked this kind of article before. I don't see how this is notable, and for those who might appeal to WP:GEOLAND, I don't see that "legally recognized" is satisfied; but if it be so, it's another example of how that has proven to be a bad standard. There appear to be a number of these, newly created, so we're going to be busy here. Mangoe (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging expert @Stok _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best wait for the experts but here's my dwa groszy in the meantime - www.polskawliczbach.pl is apparently algorithmically-created content and anyway not a reliable source. Using my poor Polish (I lived there for four years but am far from fluent) I tried searching on the Teryt database linked to in the article but couldn't find a place called Głusza, though this is probably just my own failing. The location is, as Mangoe says, just someone's drive-way. I spot checked three of the article-creator's articles over on the NGEO talk-page and all three were problematic (two were about locations with nothing at them and sourcing which did not show that they had ever really been populated; the other was about a random embassy in Warsaw with no GNG pass). Leaning delete simply on this basis. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked into this in more detail, I'm going to upgrade my !vote to strong delete. The place in question is an osada leśna (or "forest settlement") according to this regulation on the names of cities and parts of cities, not a hamlet (which in the relevant Polish law is referred to as a przysiółek -see Art.2(10)). A "settlement" in the relevent Polish law (Art.2(8) of the same act previously linked) is described as:

"osada - niewielką jednostkę osadniczą na terenie wiejskim o odmiennym (wyróżniającym się) charakterze zabudowy albo zamieszkaną przez ludność związaną z określonym miejscem lub rodzajem pracy, w szczególności: osadę młyńską, osadę leśną, osadę rybacką, osadę kolejową, osadę po byłym państwowym gospodarstwie rolnym; osada może być samodzielna lub może stanowić część innej jednostki osadniczej;"

Or in machine translation:

"settlement - a small settlement unit in a rural area with a different (distinct) character of development or inhabited by people associated with a specific place or type of work, in particular: a mill settlement, a forest settlement, a fishing settlement, a railway settlement, a settlement of a former state farm; the settlement may be independent or may constitute part of another settlement unit;" (emphasis added)

From this you can see that the location need not actually be populated (emphasis on the "or inhabited" part of this) or independent, which is indeed what we see in multiple examples of these settlements for which there are now AFDs open - they can be forestry offices, farms, or even just empty locations, and can simply be parts of villages.

GEOLAND gives a presumption of notability to legally-recognised populated places, but a place need only be "a small settlement unit in a rural area with a different (distinct) character of development", and not necessarily inhabited, to receive the status of being a "osada leśna". FOARP (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Following pl:osada leśna interwiki leads me to hamlet (place), but that particular article on pl wiki has a pipe leadning to ... a wilderness hut. If it is a hamlet, it may meet GEOLAND, but if it is just a hut... (TERYT confirms it is a hamlet). I'll start an AFD on pl wiki and ask for more feedback. PS. Done: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2023:10:17:Głusza (powiat wałecki) - let's wait a week or so and see if any useful arguments emerge there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to 2006 Ontario municipal elections. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Norfolk County municipal election

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

This is a non-notable local election in a municipality with under 100k people. Since the previous AfD in 2006, our notability standards around this sort of topic have gotten much stricter. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Canada. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do we actually have a policy with a 100k cut off? If so, there are quite a few articles that should be deleted. But I think, the true measure of notability is reliable sources, which this article still needs. If we do end up deleting the article, I vote to merge the information with 2006 Ontario municipal elections.-- Earl Andrew - talk 11:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with all of what Earl Andrew has noted here. Could certainly use more sources (which I'd be more than happy to try and find) but, if the move is to delete, it should be merged with the 2006 Ontario municipal elections page. HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The admissibility of an article about a municipal election hinges less on the population of the municipality per se, and more on the depth and quality of the sourcing that can or cannot be provided to support the article with. It is, of course, far likelier that large cities will have the necessary level of sourcing than it is that small towns will, but it ultimately hinges more on the sourcing than the population per se. (There are, for instance, cities over 100K in 2006 Ontario municipal elections which do not have standalone articles linked separately from the results tabled in the main article.) We can, of course, hold onto the mayoral numbers in the parent article, but I don't see a lot of value in keeping all the ward councillor races there if no other place in the "Municipalities with 25,000 to 100,000 people" section (which is where Norfolk would go) has any ward councillor races recorded there. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's just a chart with numbers, over and over. There is no critical discussion of the candidates, nor any indication why this election was more significant than others. We don't need a running tally for every municipal election in Ontario. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole municipality only has (as of today) around 65 000 residents. This is not a major part of the province (not an economic centre, not a large tourist area), it just exists... This isn't Toronto or Ottawa. It's a fraction of the province that lives here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have deprodded 2000 Norfolk County municipal election, 2003 Norfolk County municipal election and 2010 Norfolk County municipal election. I propose that the scope of this discussion be broadened to include these other similar articles. ~Kvng (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local municipal elections are not not notable per se. But, as Bearcat describes, we want to see how or why the election was notable, and it is more likely that a municipality with a larger population size would show the national or international coverage that elevates the election above other elections (as this project is not a database of election results). In theory, a US president's first campaign for a municipal office might retrospectively become notable, or a former prime minister losing an election for a local office might make the election more notable than most (see the fictional case of Welcome to Mooseport). --Enos733 (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see consensus. It's not a good sign though when those advocating Keep say that there need to be better sources. What thoughts are there about the proposed Merger? And, no, after 5 days of an open AFD, it's too late to add additional articles to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant information (mayoral) to 2006 Ontario municipal elections#Municipalities with 25,000 to 100,000 people. Nfitz (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2006 Ontario municipal elections. Oppose Kvng's proposal to expand scope of the AfD to include other elections. Unlike virtually any other future event, local elections can rise to WP:GNG with zero predictability. I feel that we need to make case-by-case determinations on whether a particular election's sourcing reach WP:NEVENT thresholds (specifically WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep — withdrawn‎. Nominating rationale and other concerns no longer apply after recent changes. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective (Rick Nelson album)

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

This is a contested draftification. No claim to notability per WP:NALBUM. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as nominator. Searches of all the usual databases turned up nothing that would merit keeping. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)(striking duplicate vote, your deletion nomination is your Delete vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Draftify - Does not satisfy musical notability. The only reference is Allmusic, which is not a secondary source. Draftification will give the originator six months to find real sources if they exist. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was previously draftified. The creator moved it back to the main space within two hours without making changes to improve the article's quality. Significa liberdade (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSIC Not all albums are notable. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NALBUM#C1.
1. AllMusic staff review [67] (Published reviews of creative works are considered secondary sources)
2. SIGCOV of the album in Randy Newman's American Dreams published by ECW Press [68].

—siro χ o 08:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I saw this source when I was searching as well, and would not call this significant coverage. Reading into it in more detail now, there's only one paragraph about the album, and it's used more as a comparison against the work of Harry Nilsson, who's the main focus of the chapter. I don't think this is enough to meet NALBUM. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:44, 10 October 2023 (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, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG with the following significant coverage:

Courrier, Kevin (2005). Randy Newman's American Dreams. Nilsson Sings Newman may have been partly inspired by Rick Nelson's concept approach to Randy Newman on his Perspective album in 1968 (where he also covered songs by Nilsson). In the age of psychedelic rock, Nelson was perceived as an anachronism. A superior rockabilly performer, Nelson nevertheless didn't see himself merely as a washed-up oldies act, so with Perspective, he consciously began deconstructing his rockabilly image. Produced by John Boylen and featuring arrangements by Jimmy Haskell, the record contains a wide breadth of what were then contemporary songs. Besides Newman and Nilsson, Nelson covered tunes by Paul Simon ("For Emily, Wherever I May Find Her") and Richie Havens ("Three Day Eternity"). He also does a lovely rendition of "I Think It's Going to Rain Today" and creates an ambitious medley out of Newman's previously unreleased "Wait Till Next Year," "Love Story" and "So Long Dad/ Love Story (reprise)." Nelson's idea for Perspective was to tell a story about a famous family by connecting a series of songs. In many ways, the record was shaped by Nelson's own memories of his show-biz clan, depicted on TV's The Ozzie and Harriet Show, which painted a serene picture of old-fashioned fifties suburban life. As if emulating Brian Wilson, Nelson incorporated a playful mix of sound effects, which included splashing in the bathtub, cars driving and phones ringing, giving the record the flavor of a radio drama.
Selvin, Joel (1990). Ricky Nelson : idol for a generation. She not only supplied one of her childlike paintings of a recording studio scene for the back cover of his next album, Perspective, but added a breathy French recitation to a song Rick and Boylan wrote called "Hello to the Wind (Bonjour le Vent)." Boylan returned to California, where he was producing folk-rockers the Dillards and the sleek pop group the Association, who was doing the soundtrack to the movie Goodbye, Columbus. Boylan hunted up a bunch of songs by a relatively unknown songwriter named Randy Newman, along with numbers by the likes of Paul Simon, Harry Nilsson, Richie Havens, and a couple of his own, went into the studio with a typical cast of Hollywood sidemen and arrangers, and recorded Perspective, Rick's only 1968 recording, not released until almost a year later. Rick knew what the album sounded like. "I was lost," he said. "For a while I said 'OK, you get me a song and a producer and I'll do it your way.' For a while, the producer was more important than the artist, which is kind of an unhealthy situation because the production should really enhance the artist. But with me, I was getting buried in it. Beautiful string sections, beautiful arrangements, but I sounded like I was that big," he said, closing his thumb and forefinger into a tiny gap. Neither of the two Boylan albums proved particularly successful in the marketplace, and Rick grew to hate the overproduced records.
Homer, Sheree (2012). Rick Nelson, rock 'n' roll pioneer. In 1968, Boylan produced one more Nelson album, Perspective. Besides production, he wrote three songs: "Stop by My Window," "The Lady Stayed with Me," and co-wrote with Nelson "Hello to the Wind (Bonjour Le Vent)." Nelson later admitted, "Perspective with those songs was a complete experiment and those Steve Miller type sound effects between tracks were my idea.... I'm not sorry I did those things because, if anything, it made up my mind as to the way I wanted to go." He went back to the basics: "I just simplified the whole thing and went back to the formula of drums, bass, and guitar. That's where I'd always been most effective."

These sources provide significant critical commentary and historical context. In combination with the Allmusic review this meets the GNG standard. Jfire (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that research, Jfire! I think now that the subject has been shown to pass notability standards it would be better to draftify per the outcomes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Fever and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bright Lights and Country Music (Rick Nelson album), which are by the same page creator. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to draftify. I've expanded the article using these sources. Jfire (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks so much for your work on that! Since I believe all the concerns I and other editors have mentioned should be fixed now, I'm willing to withdraw. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: with the new sources cited above, it's a keep. Oaktree b (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus that this article fails WP:NTRAINSTATION which is a notability guidelines so I'm closing this as Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2779 km

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

As the article says, a train station, not a settlement, even if it has a population. The Russian text is no more illuminating: of the four sources, three of them are either the census or derivations of it, and the fourth is "the most complete and accurate database of RCOAD codes and numbers of the Federal Tax Service Inspectorate of Russia" (acto the Bing translation). The station (a pair of platforms) is there, and a short ways off is what looks like a farm with a pair of house which could account for the census numbers. I'm having a hard time seeing this as a notable place. Mangoe (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment Here comes another WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument but if this place really is a train station, then you might wanna run this by the folks over at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Trains because last I checked even unstaffed halts (tiny train stops with no or very few buildings/amenities) can be eligible for articles. Americanfreedom (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's bordering on a WP:TNT argument given that what's there is nothing at all like what station stop articles look like. I don't consider station stops notable per se though I would object to a redirect to the line/service in question, assuming it exists and has a listing of stops. Mangoe (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We have a guideline for train-stations, it's WP:NTRAINSTATION, which this obviously fails. People should not attempt to do an end-run around it by pointing out that it is a lowest-denomination unit on the Russian census, equivalent to a census-tract, as census-tracts are excluded from giving a GEOLAND pass. The place this is the station for (and is part of) is Kukharevo, but whilst there is an article for that on Russian Wiki, we don't have one in English. Therefore there is no target to merge to. Redirecting a random length in kilometres to a random village/district in Russia does not make sense. FOARP (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "Whilst there is an article for that on Russian Wiki, we don't have one in English" - would be a reason to wait. And it isn't a random length, it's the name of the place. Peter James (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  We don't keep non-notable articles around just because they might be redirected to something that might be written in the future. And yes, if you're searching "2779 km", then what you're searching for is a length in kilometres.
  - And this is the only thing with that name (and has been included in a list since 2018, so there is already a suitable redirect target). Other similar titles 10,000 km and 1378 km are also unambiguous. It's notable according to one guideline; if it is decided that there should not be a separate article, a redirect can have {{R printworthy}}, categorisation and interwiki linking. Has there been a discussion where it was decided these are "equivalent to a census-tract"? Peter James (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  "Rural localities" are not necessarily inhabited - they are just locations, so your statement below is rather missing the point: there is nothing to be written about this place other than that it exists. FOARP (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet the notability standard for train stations. –dlthewave ☎ 04:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a populated place named after its approximate distance from Moscow along a railway line; the train station would be ru:2779 км (остановочный пункт) (currently a red link in a template). The description "railway station" is a translation from ru:Остановочный пункт but the other use linked in the hatnote (a rural locality) is the relevant one here; the English article Classification of inhabited localities in Russia only lists the common types. Peter James (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have never taken populated places as notable simply for having a population and a name. Mangoe (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's not even a physical station building, it's basically a dot on a map, perhaps marked by a signpost. Desolate, barren area with no historical importance, it appears. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NTRAINSTATION. Folly Mox (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Cisco Bradley

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ ––– GMH MELBOURNE 02:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NACADEMIC (as far as i can tell). None of the sources in the article are independent. From what I could find on google, nothing seemed to be totally independent or reliable. Note: article creator is an editor who has declared a COI. ––– GMH MELBOURNE 03:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Music, and Montana. ––– GMH MELBOURNE 03:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Work has not made an impact through citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Book citations in musicology are extremely hard to find - what sources did you consult for this?

-- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "book citations in musicology are extremely hard to find" needs a source. A look at GS for "Musicology" shows many references with well over 100 citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Seem to meet WP:AUTHOR for authorship of some notable books. Here's some reviews:
1. The Legacy of Shaykh Da’ud bin ‘Abd Allah al-Fatani in Mecca and Southeast Asia
  1. Sevea, Teren. Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land- En Volkenkunde 172, no. 4 (2016): 545–48. [69]
  2. Bruinessen, Martin van. Journal of Islamic Studies. Jan2018, Vol. 29 Issue 1, p103-106. [70]
  3. BROWN, JARROD W, Southeast Review of Asian Studies Volume 39 (2017), pp. 159–87 [71]
  4. Fogg, Kevin W. Journal of Asian Studies. Nov2018, Vol. 77 Issue 4, p1131-1132. 2p. [72])
  5. Eric Tagliacozzo Volume44, Issue3. Special Issue: Biblical Translating and Interpreting. September 2018. Pages 344-345. [73]
2. Universal Tonality: The Life and Music of William Parker
  1. Benjamin Barson, Critical Studies in Improvisation / Études critiques en improvisation, Vol. 15, No. 1, [74]
  2. Henry, Lisa, Universal Tonality: The Life and Music of William Parker. Library Journal, 03630277, Jan2021, Vol. 146, Issue 1 [75]
  3. Dietrich, K. R. Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. Nov2021, Vol. 59 Issue 3, p458-458. 1/4p

—siro χ o 09:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- three books by two of the top presses in their respective fields (Duke for Jazz studies; UH for East/Southeast Asian studies), with significant numbers of reviews for the books that have been out long enough to have reviews found by Siroxo. Definitely above the Average Professor test as a significant music researcher. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some of the above reviews and some others to the article. I agree they're enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets our guideline for WP:AUTHOR Lightburst (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Esene

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

Topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. The sources available (which you can go through) are PR and press releases. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Wholly promotional article about a person who doesn't passes the [[[WP:GNG]]. Sources are either passing mention, not even mentioning the subject or wholly insignificant coverage-wise. Literally no citation to establish notability. Originally moved to draftspace by nominator but was later moved back to mainspace by creator without going through the AfC process which was presumably the essence of the draftification. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Thanks to User:Graham87 for his help with this history merger. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Lino

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and develop. I have reset the article classification to stub because it is at a very early stage of development, as would be expected for an 18-year-old player. I think the topic meets the notability guidelines, perhaps marginally so, and all that is needed is for the article to be developed. I know there is a WP:TOOSOON guideline which would apply if Franco was still a reserve player only, but he has made his professional debut. It is surely "too soon" to delete because, if Franco's career takes off, the article will have to be recreated and that would mean time has been wasted. PearlyGigs (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His career may take off is not a good enough argument to keep. WP:TOOSOON applies. TarnishedPath^talk 10:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search indicates that the subject fails WP:SPORTBASIC. This was created WP:TOOSOON. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with TarnishedPath that fails WP:SPORTBASIC. 'Draftify' is a good option, but my understanding is that the policy is not yet approved?? Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this discussion as Draftify but found that Draft:Franco Lino exists already. Should that draft be deleted in favor of this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Draft and Delete The draft is very similar to the article being discussed here, but not identical. I think the best option is to combine the two in draft form, as it may be WP:TOOSOON to be in mainspace. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I tried to Merge this article and the draft version and even though the edit history didn't overlap, the system wouldn't allow me to complete a Merge. Perhaps it's because they were in different namespaces. Maybe someone could ping an admin who is more technically adept at merging page histories and they could take a stab at this process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: see above. I suspect the draft first needs to be histmerged into the mainspace article and then moved ot of mainspace without leaving a redirect. Could you take a look when you have a chance? Jenks24 (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jenks24: All done. I have no position on what should happen to this page though. Graham87 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Graham. @Liz: histmerge has been done so you should be fine to close as drafity now if you want and move it to Draft:Franco Lino. Jenks24 (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Hüseyin Can

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

There are barely any sources on the Internet, and the only source here is not independent from the subject. This screams not WP:N. Aintabli (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a bad sign that there doesn't even seem to be an article in Turkish for them. If there are insufficient sources to support an article about a person in their native language, it's doubtful we'll be able to do any better. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Magadh University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S.D. College Kaler

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

BEFORE came up with nothing, sources given are primary. Sohom (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Bihar. Sohom (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magadh University. According to this Times of India article, S.D. College Kaler is a constituent college of Magadh University. Mooonswimmer 14:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Magadh University, the above seems to be correct. - Indefensible (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Magadh University.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Magadh University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fatehpur Sanda College

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

BEFORE does not bring up anything, current sourcing is only 1 press release and 1 primary sources neithier of which show notability. Sohom (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Bihar. Sohom (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magadh University. - Indefensible (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Country Fever

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. WP:BEFORE didn't turn up anything else. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 01:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 01:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify sounds similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bright Lights and Country Music (Rick Nelson album). Many Rick Nelson albums will be individually notable—this one likely is due to his well-known shift into country music but it'll take time to dig up sources from that era. —siro χ o 02:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page has been draftified recently. However, the creator moved it out of the draft space without making significant changes to improve the article. Significa liberdade (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple months ago, someone mentioned to me that even when this happens, the creator doesn't WP:OWN the article, which I now try to consider in such cases. It's pretty clear the creator has had a bit of a tough start on Wikipedia, and that's unfortunate. However the article is in an acceptable state to draftify, and it's very likely sources exist, given the artist's well-known shift into country music. —siro χ o 16:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything in sources except passing mentions. Also, this article is unfortunately part of a string of others created by the same user, and brought to AfD for notability issues. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSIC Not all albums are notable. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Siroxo and outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bright Lights and Country Music (Rick Nelson album). The author should probably be banned from creating new articles and should have to go through the AFC process for each. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I advised them to do exactly that last week, and so far they've been pretty good about cooperating with the AfC review process, which I appreciate. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic

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

All but one entry (Archaic (comics)) is a partial match on this disambiguation page. Replacing this with a redirect to Archaism shortchanges the other main meaning of the word. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not quite clear to me what exactly you want done now: redirecting to archaism? But that article is actually about yet a different, more specialized concept (not archaic periods in the history of civilizations or languages, but archaic elements preserved in present-day languages). Or redirecting to the comic? But that is most certainly not the primary meaning. I'd keep the page as is, for lack of a better solution. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the comic needs a link, the "in title" and "look from" links will help readers find other stuff, and the rest of the page needs to be trimmed drastically. Note that in Archaic_humans#Terminology_and_definition they are referred to several times as "archaics", so that is certainly a valid entry (though should not be piped: I've unpiped).Pam D 13:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Archaic period already exists, which covers the archaeological eras. The other entries seem unlikely to be confused with one another, and WP:PTM applies here. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Presidentman So do you suggest that the comic be renamed Archaic and that we leave it at that? PamD 21:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine with me. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is another dab page at Archaic Period: either that should redirect to this, or this should have a link to that instead of the various corresponding entries. We don't need both lists. PamD 07:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a go at producing a stripped-back version of the Archaic disambiguation page which I suggest will work to help all readers. PamD 07:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend Does this answer your concerns about the page? PamD 09:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Two of the three entries are partial matches. However, I don't want it to become a redirect to the comic. Maybe a soft redirect to Wiktionary? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But then the comic is lost. I really think my suggestion works best, even with a touch of WP:IAR, to help the reader. PamD 09:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added archaism back into the main dab, explicitly including "archaic" in the description. In my own life that's by far the most common occurrence of "archaic". I imagine the same will be true of at least some other readers. —siro χ o 02:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are multiple things that readers may arrive at this page wanting to find, none seem primary. I see at least 4 full-fledged entries that should be disambiguated. (Comic, language, humans, periods). I think the dab is preferable to search results. —siro χ o 03:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now. And mixed opinions expressed on what some editors actually want to happen to this article which doesn't help determine a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a reasonable disambiguation page to me. There are multiple articles that a searcher could reasonably be looking for.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful for readers as 4meter4 and Siroxo have noted already.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Shankar

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable singer. Fails the general and singer-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nepal. UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article was ruled a "soft" delete on September 23, just two days ago. If I am reading the history correctly, it appears that the article's creator simply removed the AfD notice and carried on, and the article was never actually deleted. Now it has been nominated for deletion again as if something different will happen this time. See the exact same course of events at Benisha Poudel, with the same article creator involved. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it was deleted and then requested to be restored via WP:RFU. This request was fulfilled (which is why the AFD tag was removed). I then created the 2nd AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One question remains: what is the likelihood of anything different happening this time? I'm undecided as a voter and it appears that few others are interested, so therefore I'm seeing wasteful bureaucracy. Sorry for all the copy/pasting. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since a restored prod or restore soft delete can not be soft deleted again, this will remain an active discussion until there is enough discussion to reach a more permanent conclusion. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep - There are lots of reliable and independent sources, with significant coverage.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 meet WP:GNG and notable.Endrabcwizart (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. I think an immediate renomination to AFD after a weakly attended first AFD might not result in the permanent conclusion you expect. There would have to be substantial support for Deleting this article since Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass WP:GNG with sources cited in the article and provided here.4meter4 (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would request to all(for participate this afd and close.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endrabcwizart (talk • contribs) 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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. A future Merge can be discussed on the article talk page or another appropriate forum. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians of Julfa

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

We already have Armenians in Azerbaijan, Armenians in Nakhchivan, Armenian cemetery in Julfa, Armenian cultural heritage in Azerbaijan and Julfa, Azerbaijan (city)#History. We don't need this article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per nomination. Nemoralis (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose well sourced, passes WP:GNG. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have articles for the historical Armenian population of every place once inhabited by them. I am aware of the cultural importance of Julfa for Armenians, but we have a lot of much better articles where this information can be perfectly covered. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the history section to Julfa, Azerbaijan (city)#History, but the cemetery portion is already covered by the dedicated article, so no need to merge that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above rationale. Archives908 (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus so far. Also "We don't need this article" is not a strong deletion rationale as editors, in good faith, can disagree on what articles are "needed" on the project.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV. Oppose merge through this AFD for procedural reasons. The content could possibly be merged as suggested above but that should be done through a formal merge proposal at WP:MERGEPROP where notices can be placed at the targeted merge article and the threat of deletion removed from that discussion. I advocate for this because in my opinion merging this content could create WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in the suggested merge article, and it it might be preferable to either let it remain a stand alone article, or merge to one of the other articles mentioned by the nominator (such as Armenians in Azerbaijan which I think would be a better merge target than Julfa, Azerbaijan (city)#History).4meter4 (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources and notability. Nocturnal781 (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge per 4meter4's thoughtful analysis.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move a whole mess of articles‎ Per the below, which appears to have consensus. Should specific titles need tweaking, they can be adjusted at RM. But cascade TK within ten minutes Star Mississippi 01:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Truist

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

Disambiguation page not needed; see WP:PTM. Make Truist a primary redirect to Truist Financial. 162 etc. (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep - all of these can reasonably be referred to as simply "Truist", per WP:PTM. In addition, there is no primary topic for "Truist", so disambiguation is necessary. Finally, there are five stadiums with four different name types (Park, Field, Stadium, and Point), and keeping track of which is where and called what is confusing without some sort of list somewhere, which is partially what DAB pages are for, to avoid confusion. BilCat (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are five (!) American sports venues called "Truist Something". There needs to be some kind of disambiguation page listing all of them. Should it be at Truist or something else? I don't know. But, a reader thinking they want to know about Truist Field and finding it in a different city than they expected with nothing to point them in the direction of the stadium they actually want isn't helpful. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Truist Stadium, move Truist Stadium to a qualified title like Truist Stadium (Winston-Salem) or something, as it is definitely not the primary topic, and make Truist a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Truist Financial as requested by the nom. Then move the Truist Financial entry on the dab to the see also section, and update hatnotes as necessary. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move as suggested by Mdewman6. "Truist" on its ~~unknown~~ own generally refers to the actual bank unambiguously. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, and United States of America. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Truist Stadium. All of the stadiums that fall under Truist are there because Truist bank sponsors them and has the naming rights. Also as far as I can tell every sponsorship has a time period so all of these stadiums will eventually be renamed as something else. It's also consistent, if you search American Airlines you aren't sent to dismab page asking if you meant American Airlines Center. BHC (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Truist (disambiguation) or perhaps Trust (stadium). Please note that Truist Stadium is not the right dab name here, per WP:DABNAME: The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page,. "Truist" is the name being disambiguated, not "Truist Stadium", which only represents 2 of the 5 actual names. —siro χ o 05:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's my issue with this dabpage - there is no ambiguous term. These are all PTMs. The consensus so far seems to be that we want to keep the page, but really this isn't a disambiguation page; it's more of a List of stadiums sponsored by Truist Financial, and I don't see much precedent for keeping such an article. 162 etc. (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a set index then. Except for Truist Financial, all the entries are stadiums (see their lede sentences) regardless of actual name. Then, as it serves a "disambiguation-like function", Truist stadium (disambiguation) can redirect there to disambiguate the two that actually have base name "Truist Stadium". Mdewman6 (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that can work. —siro χ o 23:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying to understand Move recommendations that suggest moving this page to one occupied by an existing article. There needs to be more consensus on what to do here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This is a frustrating AFD because there are multiple move suggestions occurring, some of which can not be carried out by a closer. This article can not be moved to Truist Stadium because there is an article existing at this title and can't simply be deleted in favor of this article because it was not included in this nomination. Other editors want a simple page move to a page title that indicates that this is a disambiguation page which is a move that can be carried out outside of this AFD. If editors can't get on the same page with their recommendations, I think this might be closed as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Mdwewman's proposal for this because it's 50/50 about who is searching for the bank or its sporting venues. Nate • (chatter) 00:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move Truist to Truist (disambiguation), redirect Truist to Truist Financial as the company is the WP:PRIMARY target for which all the other things are named, move Truist Stadium to Truist Stadium (Winston-Salem) and redirect Truist Stadium to Truist (disambiguation). This sorts out the problem raised by Liz in in the redirect above and should sort things out in the spirit of what everyone stated above. @Mdewman6, Presidentman, BHC, Siroxo, and MrSchimpf how does this workable plan sound? The votes above weren't workable as pointed out by Liz. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This all sounds workable to me, and I will support this. Nate • (chatter) 02:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't resolve the concerns above that "Truist" is not the ambiguous term being disambiguated, with the opinion that most of the entries are then partial title matches. Not to complicate things, but I still believe my proposal above is the best solution, the problem is that prior to the last reslist nobody explicitly supported moving Truist Stadium to Truist Stadium (Winston-Salem), and that page must be moved to make this work. Rather than have a no consensus close and then having to redo all of this in an RM, I think a closer could find there is consensus to move the article currently at Truist Stadium to something, and be explicit in their close that there is not actually consensus on where it should be moved (essentially invoking WP:NOGOODOPTIONS as if this were an RM). To me, prior to the last relist there was a consensus for the moves I proposed, but obviously it's up to the closer's discretion on what there is actually consensus for. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is how I understood Mdewman6's suggestion, so I support this. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support 4meter4's proposal. To me this makes by far the most sense as Trust Financial is what most users are looking for and all the stadiums derive from them. BHC (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, all of the move proposals above include redirecting Truist to Truist Financial. Can you clarify why you favor disambiguating at Truist (disambiguation) instead of a set index at Truist Stadium? Mdewman6 (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry somehow missed this ping. I support this plan. —siro χ o 17:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move: per 4meter4 above, along with the cascade of moves. UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move per 4meter4. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Ray

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

Advert by likely UPE; fails WP:BIO. Only a single source ([76]) is more than a passing mention, and this is insufficient. Jfire (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jfire (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfire It wasn't UPE, but am happy to take notes if improvements should be made in the future. I felt based on his colleague Michael Green (agent) this page was an improvement, sorry if not the case somehow. Stravensky (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like a professional profile and is basically promotional, even if accidentally so. This happens a lot with articles on businesspeople, because most the information out there is structured as such. To write an article that will be kept, find some secondary sources that provide an independent look at this person, and summarize the secondary coverage in those sources. It might not be possible, a lot of businesspeople relentlessly self-promote, but don't get much independent coverage, and we can't build an encyclopedia article around that self-promotion. —siro χ o 03:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest engaging with editors in the discussion at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard you were notified about on your talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Out of the 22 references on the page, this is the only one that comes close to showing notability. The rest are one liners, quotes, and some don't even mention the subject. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, California, Florida, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The article has no real sourcing in the first two references blocks. They are passing mentions often in something or someones else's context. The article is terrible as well. It is a brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 06:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dilse

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

No reliable reviews. I removed all questionable sources (no wiki link). Remaining 8 sources confirm that the film released and nothing else. Could redirect to Dil Se... DareshMohan (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep because production has attracted relative attention (I am not sure all sources removed from the page were not appropriate, but maybe that's just me); if not, redirect to List of Telugu films of 2023. The film is not a remake of Dil Se.., is it? Why would we redirect the page there, if it is not?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank: I agree with your vote but I feel the article will be stronger had it had two reliable reviews. It is not a remake like you said. The name is a common misspelling of Dil Se. However, I had to remove unreliable sources because of the promotional tone. DareshMohan (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Please add newly found sources to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Molinelli

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

Article is sourced to the subject's website, YouTube, and other sources like press releases which lack independence from the subject. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. 4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be notable as a composer/musician/conductor, I think something like WP:MUSICBIO, WP:COMPOSER, WP:NCREATIVE should be satisfied, possibly WP:BASIC. It's likely most of the coverage will not be in English language here.
1. There's quite a bit of SIGCOV of his music direction for in this German De Gruyter book Die Interaktion zwischen Dirigent:in und Musiker:innen in Orchesterproben: [77]
2. WP:COMPOSER / WP:MUSICBIO for various pieces including
  1. "Lady Walton's Garden" [78][79]
  2. Tango Seasons [80][81]

Not sure on how independent this is, but there's a bio credited to a Cecilia Farinelli in the Barilla historical archive (yes that Barilla) [82], also seems to be in one or more books put out by that company [83]

—siro χ o 08:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources above seem ok, I'd incorporate them into the article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benisha Poudel

AfDs for this article:

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

Amateur singer with no notability. Fails the general and singer-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, and Nepal. UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article was ruled a "soft" delete on September 23, just two days ago. If I am reading the history correctly, it appears that the article's creator simply removed the AfD notice and carried on, and the article was never actually deleted. Now it has been nominated for deletion again as if something different will happen this time. See the exact same course of events at David Shankar, with the same article creator involved. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it was deleted and then requested to be restored via WP:RFU. This request was fulfilled (which is why the AFD tag was removed). I then created the 2nd AFD. UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One question remains: what is the likelihood of anything different happening this time? I'm undecided as a voter and it appears that few others are interested, so therefore I'm seeing wasteful bureaucracy. Sorry for all the copy/pasting. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep - There are lots or reliable, notable refrences on article, which clearly meet WP:GNG and and singer-specific notability policies.As per information please read. [84] 2 3 4 Endrabcwizart (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

procedural keep & Comment - keep as per |1, this was the actual main reasons, & I would request to all(for participate this afd and close.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endrabcwizart (talk • contribs)
- You have already !voted keep once, please strike one of them. Your link is not reason for a procedural keep when @UtherSRG: was not the nominator. Star Mississippi 21:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. It sounds like there has been improvement on the article that might address the nominator's concerns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Inspired Teaching

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

Moved from AfC. I don't see WP:ORG level coverage here. Much of the sourcing is primary, churnalism and/or not in depth Star Mississippi 00:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Washington. Star Mississippi 00:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this org has been in the news since 1996 (the news link above shows plenty of hits over the years) and won awards in 2022 and 2023. Sure, it could use work – I just fixed the latest refs which were very poorly done by someone who probably cares about the org but is not experienced with WP referencing. Let's improve it rather than remove it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dicklyon's comments above and his work cleaning up the article. This is a "weak keep" for me - I think notability is still just over the line. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dicklyon. There's enough RS coverage here to pass the notability bar. Sal2100 (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Library of Congress as of 1988

[2] Kansas History: A Journal of the Central Plains -World Cat Search Results.

[3] [1]

[1]

[2]

[1]