Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 29

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uncle G (talk | contribs) at 11:25, 29 February 2024 (Fixed transclusion.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< February 28 March 01 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 06:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IConji

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

Failed PROD due to half of a RS—otherwise seems a non-notable app. Remsense诉 11:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Manvi#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 09:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government First Grade College, Manvi

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

lack of notability or working links

cannot find any notable information

Cannot find reference to the College in Gulbaga UNiversity website, although it is described online and in this Wikipedia page as being an affiliated college

May have changed its name? Newhaven lad (talk) 11:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Pakistani provincial elections

2024 Pakistani provincial elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

IMO fails WP:STAND. Saqib (talk) 11:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom, plus we have separate election articles for each provincial assembly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It seems like a useful disambiguator to me? SportingFlyer T·C 16:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have Template:Pakistani general election, 2024. --Saqib (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We also have functionally the same page at 2018 Pakistani provincial elections. SportingFlyer T·C 10:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a useful DAB article and something to point {{Pakistani elections}} to. Number 57 09:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are 4 internal links in page, which are already in Template:Pakistani general election, 2024.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep–This article serves as a valuable disambiguator, given that every Pakistani provincial election has one. Moreover, it addresses the limitation of templates like {{Pakistani elections}} not displaying on the mobile version. Ainty Painty (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2024 (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, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a useful DAB page, per Number 57 and Ainty Painty. Sal2100 (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. "It's useful" is an argument to be avoided in AFDLand.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S.R Mahadeva Sarma S.R Rajasree

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

Unable to find enough GNG-level sources for this duo. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Universal Kids. Known drive-by vandalism by LTA, content is already within Universal Kids article. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 21:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sprout (TV channel)

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

Hey, a removed a redirect from Sprout (TV channel), E2mb7, 29 February 2024, 19:45 (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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reşit Inceoğlu

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

It appears that this was being curated on the Turkish Wikipedia in the sandbox of the same user just like here, but was nuked before it made its way into the mainspace. Together with the Commons file, I have concerns regarding a conflict of interest.

I don't see any criteria of NPROF this person meets. While no hard limit exists, an h-index of 8 is way too low to pass the guideline: neither is being one of the founders of a department within a faculty sufficient. None of his other academic positions are significant positions (associate professor, department vice dean, professor).

This means that the other way for the subject to be notable is with sources through the GNG, so we need multiple reliable and independent sources covering the person significantly. Majority of the sources are his own publications and are from institutions he has worked for/with. Out of the 11 right now, only 3 are independent. The Hürriyet source from 2002 would be good, but it only has a passing mention of İnceoğlu and a quote of him regarding the surgery, which isn't in-depth coverage about him. Biyografya is just a site that repeats other sources, so while it generally isn't a problem to cite it, it doesn't affect notability. I can't find much about the book cited, it doesn't have an ISBN and I cannot know how much coverage it has. However, the lack of any other sourcing, including other books, leads me to believe it isn't much, and even if it was a lot, it would be the sole source.

There are not enough reliable, independent and significant sources about the subject for it to satisfy the GNG, nor does the person pass the criteria listed in its respective SNG. Styyx (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks a lot for the detailed evaluation! I think that he does meet the criteria for notability in academics due to his research and publication of articles with evidence reaching over 750 citations. The real h index is much higher based on the statistics on google scholar. Also he has significant contributions to the medical field by books and research and publications. As well there is no conflict of interest nor is there evidence of one so that is not an issue. Also the subject has received significant media coverage from newspapers because of his impact in the field. Kemaltekin (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a worthy and admirable physician, but not enough for notability. Xxanthippe (talk).
  • Speedy delete as A7. Tehonk (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability (according to Wikipedia's criteria). There's possible COI as the creator's most edits up to this point revolve around the subject. Aintabli (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Explicit, I see you have deleted the page under G7 while the AfD was going on. Could you restore it and re-delete if needed with the summary linking here? Otherwise this is basically evading the AfD process. Styyx (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD was cut short by a WP:G7 author-requested deletion. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 20, there was no consensus about whether this was appropriate given concerns of gaming the system, and as a result, this AfD is restarted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 13:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with others about lack of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He Ri Jun Zai Lai

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

Wikipedia:RLOTE Remsense诉 08:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English states: "This guideline for deleting redirects states that redirects in languages other than English that point to articles not directly related to that language (or a culture associated with that language) should generally not be kept." - I added emphasis with the italics.
  • Two of the terms are related to Mandarin: When Would You Come Again (1999 Taiwanese television series) and When Will You Return? (1937 song) are related to the Mandarin "He Ri Jun Zai Lai"
  • Two of them are from pre-1997 handover Hong Kong: Au Revoir, Mon Amour (1991) and Till the End of Time (1996). My understanding is that both films are in Cantonese, so this would mean they are related to the Chinese text "何日君再來" but not necessarily to the Mandarin pinyin.
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a borderline case—one thing I might note is that these are spaced syllables, which is definitely a way a Chinese speaker might type this into the search bar, but not the only or most likely way? I'm not sure: I would type Heri jun zai lai first, because 何日; 'when' is one word here. Remsense诉 02:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Adding another comment... personally I would keep because redirects can also include alternate capitalizations/spellings/etc. It is plausible that a native born Mandarin speaker would use this form, and so this would be a correct redirect/disambig only for topics related to cultures of Mandarin Chinese-speaking communities. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep as harmless, and potentially helpful. BD2412 T 00:34, 9 March 2024 (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, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources were offered to support the subject's notability, but they were not found convincing. There is a rough consensus to delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Nooq

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

No indication of notability. Remsense诉 07:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Eggers, JJ (2021). "The Nooq". Cabin Tripping: Where to Go to Get Away from It All. New York: Artisan Books. p. 216. ISBN 978-1-57965-990-5. Retrieved 2024-03-03 – via Google Books.

      The book provides one page of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "When a mountain is your backyard, it makes sense to go big. The Nooq cabin is all about big spaces: cathedral ceilings, fat soaking tubs, and enormous glass windows. It's also about big ideas: the clean elegance of Scandinavian design, the luminous warmth of natural light. The Nooq gets it all right, ticking off a perfect balance of style, comfort, and killer setting. Since it was completed in 2019, this contemporary retreat in Whitefish, Montana, has become a style icon. Everyone, it seems, wants to live in a Nooq. The custom work of two globetrotting photographers, Andrea Dabene and Alex Strohl, this 2,600-square-foot (242 sq m) home is tucked into a hillside forest of conifers and wildflowers but is close enough to the slopes of nearby Whitefish Mountain Resort to have ski-in access. The Nooq is roomy, ..."

    2. Baillargeon, Zoe (2020-05-19). "This Instagram-Famous Scandinavian Cabin Is Now for Rent". The Manual. Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.

      The article notes: "Featuring three gabled living spaces connected by hallways, the nooq has three bedrooms and 3.5 baths. Each “gabled” section has two floors, and as the overall structure is built into the hillside, there’s a basement level with garage. Good news for ski bums during winter: It also has ski-in access and there’s a clear sightline across the valley to neighboring ski slopes. While the surrounding views of the Montana forests are beautiful, it’s the nooq’s zen design and modern aesthetic that really sets it apart from other popular Instagram cabins."

    3. Pennington, Emily (2023-03-16). "Where to Stay Near Glacier National Park: The Best Hotels, Dude Ranches, and Glamping Sites". Condé Nast Traveler. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.

      The article notes: "It’s a challenge to find anything as architectural and elegant as the Nooq in a land populated by antler chandeliers and rustic quilts, and the calming minimalism of this space helps accentuate the already glorious nature right outside the front door. A floating, wood-burning fireplace creates a mod focal point in the open-plan family room, while stainless steel appliances, Danish furnishings, cookware by Le Creuset, and a freestanding tub with mountain views elevate the rest of the space to a luxurious, tranquil retreat."

    4. M., Kathryn (2020-09-03). "A Pair of Adventurous Photographers Open the Doors of Their Epic Mountain Hideaway". Dwell. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.

      The article notes: "Lately, like so many others, they've been staying close to home—swapping a life on the go for the solitude of their Scandinavian-inspired cabin in Whitefish, Montana. Built in 2019, the mountain retreat is now up for rent on a limited basis as the duo begin a second project nearby and contemplate ways to share their love of the outdoors with others."

    5. Mello, Nô (2023-05-12). "The Nooq: um chalé aconchegante com inspiração escandinava nas montanhas de Montana" [The Nooq: A Cozy Scandinavian-Inspired Cottage in the Mountains of Montana]. Vogue Brasil (in Portuguese). Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Set in one of the mountains of Whitefish, Montana, a mecca for ski fans, The Nooq , built by adventurous photographers Alex Strohl and Andrea Dabene, is a reflection of the couple's love for the region and the stunning nature around it. ... The first thing you see when you enter the house, with its triangular structure, is the jaw-dropping view from outside."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Nooq to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How are these reliable sources, exactly? They seem neither independent nor are the mentions substantial. Remsense诉 06:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I responded below. Cunard (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm still worried about notability after the sources presented above, specifically the WP:PROMO and WP:NOTTRAVEL part of WP:NOT. The article is written very promotionally, I'm not sure if the Manual article and the Dwell article are reliable, Conde Nast only has a blurb and they may get affiliate monies from it, the Cabin Tripping book started out on Instagram... I can't access the book, but all of the articles tell you how to book the Airbnb... I'm really not sure it's honestly independently architecturally notable. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Responding to the above two comments.

    Two independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject

    Two sources that provide independent significant coverage about the subject are:

    1. Eggers 2021, a book titled Cabin Tripping: Where to Go to Get Away from It All, devotes an entire page to discussing The Nooq. Released by the reputable publisher Artisan Books, the book provides 377 words about the subject. This is a high quality independent source that provides significant coverage of the subject.
    2. Baillargeon 2020, an article from Digital Trends publication The Manual, provides 860 words about the subject. The consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 414#Digital Trends and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources is that Digital Trends is a reliable source. Both Digital Trend and The Manual are owned by Digital Trends Media Group and founded by the same person, Ian Bell. Bell serves as publisher of both websites. The Manual has editorial oversight. I consider The Manual to be a reliable source. The article has a link to The Nooq's website but the link is not an affiliate link. I consider The Manual to be an independent source.
    These two sources by themselves are sufficient to establish notability.

    WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE and WP:PROMO

    WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE says:

    Travel guides: an article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone numbers or street addresses of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should list only those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be more than welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage.

    The policy forbids adding telephone numbers and cafe prices to articles on cities. It forbids mentioning distant attractions on articles on cities. The policy does not forbid creating an architecture-related article like The Nooq.

    Regarding WP:PROMO, I edited the article to remove promotional content. I do not consider the article to be promotional anymore. I am open to suggestions on how to further improve the article's neutrality. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.

    Cunard (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Baillargeon article specifically includes a link to book the Airbnb, though. I have no tolerance for articles that exist purely to promote products, and even if sources exist, WP:NOT can still apply. I don't see a single source here that isn't a listicle or dedicated to promoting the cabin in some way, apart from arguably the book, which even says in its listing that it was originally created by a guy who runs an Instagram account and is linked with Dwell contributors. I typically fight to keep articles on buildings if there's coverage, but this article needs to be tied to a frisbee and flung into the sun. SportingFlyer T·C 13:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard, thank you very much for the diligence and clarity in your response, as well as your efforts to improve the article. Seriously, it's people like you that keep the site going. I think I still respectfully disagree that these two sources establish notability—in part because I'm not being generous when there are only two, the smallest number bigger than one. Two, mathematically the smallest number of sources one could attempt to write an encyclopedia article with. There are other sources in the article, but they simply do not register. By comparison to the ones you've singled, they lack any substance.
But! While I suppose my fuzzy boundary for establishing WP:N is a rung or two higher than it is for others, you really moved the needle most of the way there for me, thank you. You've have proven it wouldn't be at all egregious if this was kept, though I still would prefer deletion by a hair or two. The bubbling suspicion that the two sources aren't meaningfully independent per SportingFlyer factors in for me as well. Community consensus can establish whether sources are generally reliable, but not whether they are always reliable. Remsense诉 14:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the book saying "in its listing that it was originally created by a guy who runs an Instagram account and is linked with Dwell contributors", none of this calls into question the book's reliability or independence with respect to The Nooq.

The Manual links to the Digital Trends editorial guidelines, which says:

Audiences demand honesty and integrity from Digital Trends and its content. To maintain our independence and uphold trust, Editorial staffers and freelance contributors cannot accept compensation of any kind in exchange for a review, news coverage, or inclusion in an article or video.

To further ensure the integrity of our coverage, the Editorial team maintains independence from other departments and will only cover stories, companies, and products that meet the needs of our audience. Communication between Sales and Editorial is important to the business, however, and that partnership is facilitated by the Editor in Chief.

The "Commerce content" section of the editorial guidelines says:

Commerce-related content, such as deals, aims to recommend products that meet the needs and quality expectations of our audience. To maintain independence, this content is created by a separate Commerce team at Digital Trends, which works closely with the Editorial team to identify important products that meet both teams’ needs. It also seeks guidance from our product experts when possible.

An affiliate link in the article does not render the article non-independent because the staffers on the Editorial team are independent from the staffers on the Commerce team. Editors raised good points at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 264#Reliability of sources that put affiliate links in their reviews:
  1. "So long as the reviews are not written for the sake of kickbacks and the reviewed product is not sold on the review, I don't think it should matter. A reasonable degree of separation is needed to not become a dependent coverage. Even on the Oregonian, it says on the bottom 'Note to readers: If you purchase something through one of our affiliate links we may earn a commission.' With declining subscription sales, news/magazines are going more and more readership purchase commission driven. This puts more challenge on Wikipedians editorial discretion."
  2. "As long as the affiliate links do not influence editorial decisions, I don't see any concerns. News websites have to survive in some way, unlike Wikipedia editors they can't do everything for free. Let's say you are a product reviewer at a tech news website. If you want to maintain visitors to your website, you have to keep producing content. If you have to link to a product anyway, why not use affiliate links? There's no harm in that, and you get kickbacks from Amazon/Newegg/other online retailer (note: not the product manufacturer)."
The Manual's editorial guidelines make it clear that the affiliate links do not influence its editorial decisions.

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." wikt:multiple means "more than one". Two high-quality independent reliable sources that combined provide over 1,237 words of coverage about The Nooq are more than sufficient to allow it to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except they're not high quality, the sources are very clearly promoting an Air bed and breakfast. I really do not understand why you are fighting for this one. You link to a discussion, but you ignore the fact someone brings up WP:PRODUCTREV: see PRODUCTREV #2. I haven't seen the book, but all of the other reviews are essentially product reviews - the goal of the article is to advertise this Air bed and breakfast. I've written a few articles about hotels, and there's no reason why the information here couldn't be used as a source in the article, but typically a notable hotel or apartment rental will have at least a couple articles which have absolutely nothing to do with promotion. SportingFlyer T·C 09:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eggers 2021 and Baillargeon 2020 contain the authors' commentary and analysis of The Nooq. I do not find the authors' commentary and analysis to be "advertis[ing]". I do not consider the authors or their publishers to be non-independent of The Nooq. I am supporting retention because The Nooq meets the notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Baillargeon explicitly includes a link to book the place, and uses photos directly from the owner. It's not independent enough. SportingFlyer T·C 10:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Manual received permission from the owner to use the owner's photos. This does not render the text of the article non-independent. People have donated copyright materials to Wikipedia in the past such as a photo of themselves. A Wikipedia article's use of a photo donated from the article subject does not compromise the Wikipedia article's independence from the subject. As noted in The Manual's editorial guidelines, the publication's editorial team "maintains independence from other departments" such as the commerce team that is responsible for affiliate links. The article's independence is upheld through that separation. Cunard (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are arguing over the independence of a bare minimum number of sources about a Wikipedia article which was clearly a pay to play. I really can't believe you're digging on in supporting keeping this obvious spam. SportingFlyer T·C 10:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the article being considered "obvious spam", I removed the promotional content and consider the article neutral now. I am willing to make further changes to address concerns about neutrality. Cunard (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning delete. Holiday homes, like restaurants, always generate publicity of some sort. They would be of no use if they weren't being advertised widely enough for people to find them. And they exist in vast numbers. For a holiday chalet to achieve encyclopaedia-worthy notability, I think we need quite a high standard of sourcing, something to show that it stands out of the crowd. Sources that end by directing the reader to a website where they can hire the chalet are almost certainly a direct result of the owner's publicity activities, and not independent. Listicles of the "Ten best places" sort are also very weak. For example, this particular chalet is presented as a piece of Scandinavian-style architecture and interior design; if we had a reasonably in-depth article in an architecture or design magazine (not a travel, society or ski magazine), I'd be happier. Cunard has done a good job of trimming the article to neutral wording, but the result is that the article doesn't indicate that the chalet is any more notable than many other rentable buildings; and the references are still promotional, and the article's existence here is undoubtedly useful publicity. I could make a much better case for the Wee Retreat, a converted toilet in Norfolk (UK)[4], but I really don't think it's helpful to clog up Wikipedia with articles about not especially out-of-the-ordinary holiday buildings. Elemimele (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 09:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lock Yue Chew

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

Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. An associate professor, h-index 21 (Google Scholar). For CV, see the homepage at https://sites.google.com/view/lockyuechew/biography Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Singapore. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tagged this for notability two years ago after not finding evidence of passing WP:PROF. I think he still does not pass. The citation counts are not high enough (for physics) to convince me of #C1, the awards listed are all too minor to pass #C2, and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to have any particular achievements, awards, positions, publications, etc., that set him apart from an average professor in his field. nf utvol (talk) 19:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As others have said, no evidence of notability.Ldm1954 (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater|(tαlk) 21:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 4th AFD might be avoided if some of those sources the editors arguing for a Keep were added to the article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yakov Kazyansky

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

Last AfD was no consensus due to low participation. 1st AfD a weak keep with low participation in 2008, when standards were lower. I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, or a good WP:ATD. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Isn't it too soon for a re-nomination? Within only 1 day? Tehonk (talk) 09:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The closure was marked as WP:NPASR. With less articles at AfD right now, hopefully there will be enough editors to look at it and come to a consensus now. Boleyn (talk) 11:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK I see. I'll try to take a look, although the language barrier will probably make it hard. Tehonk (talk) 11:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't feel like fewer articles at AFD right now, I still see hundreds if not a thousand+. Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liz is right: With less articles at AfD right now, how? compared to when? And how is this an argument in favour of (very) speedy renomination of this page? Procedural keep. Sources were presented at the first Afd and the 2nd one. And have not been added to the page. If the nominator is really concerned about the notability of the subject, she should in my view review those sources, or have them reviewed by an expert or at the projects. Renominating pages without taking presented sources into account is really not a good thing, I think. Also, pinging the contributors to the last Afds would have been a good idea. The fact that the 2nd Afd is presented only as no consensus due to low participation. without even mentioning the numerous sources presented by User:Ostalgia is misleading. Pinging @Explicit, OlenWhitaker, Davewild, CaliforniaAliBaba, Alex Bakharev@CAPTAIN RAJU and Ozgod:-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will admit to having been a bit puzzled by the insta-relisting. My keep vote was not particularly strong but I also would have appreciated some reference to the sources. I have not had much time of late but I could provide some commentary on them if necessary. Similarly, if there is consensus to keep I could try to flesh out the article myself over time. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm sorry but I see no Keep vote or sources from Ostalgia.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from Ostalgia are in the 2nd Afd talk. Maybe you have checked the first only? (This is the 3d Afd.....) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mushy Yank, I was looking for them in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as well as the sources identified by Ostalgia in the second AfD there is also coverage at AllMusic with a staff written bio here and two staff album reviews here and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC) striking comment as it was the wrong Russian pianist, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Atlantic, the sources you linked are for a different individual, pianist Yakov Kasman. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more chance, in hopes of avoiding a no consensus result.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on the multiple sources in Russian identified by Ostalgia in the second AfD linked at the top right of this discussion that incllude several newspaper articles and together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ostalgia's research in the second AfD, looks somewhat enough.Tehonk (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per all above. Svartner (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after reading second AfD nomination; sources do establish notability. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 21:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archetyp Market

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

Fails WP:NCORP - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I'm not familiar with tarnkappe.info, but there are no hits for it on the WP:RSN search, and it appears to be the only substantive source anyways. ~ A412 talk! 06:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I understand your point, but the trouble I am having is that most of the things that need to be cited are on Tor, and I am currently facing difficulties indexing everything that is on Tor and tor index's that would be accepted according to Wikipedia's guidelines. It's a tricky situation when trying to document a part of the internet that doesn't want to be found or is on Tor. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations you could give on getting this up to snuff Darkwebhistory (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it stands - the RSes just don't seem to exist for a proper Wikipedia article on this - David Gerard (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double Bubble Bingo

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

Promotional, no significant coverage in reliable sources. ~ A412 talk! 06:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Delete and redirect" is not an ATD as it results in the deletion of the article. Would a straight Redirect work?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to Gamesys. No indication of notability, and this is purely promotion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 dramatic improvement in sourcing during the AfD shifted consensus into Keep territory. A separate discussion about a possible merger into another page can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela and state-sponsored terrorism

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

Article has one citation, is extremely undue as it suggests disputed social groups known as colectivos are terrorist in nature and relies solely on the opinion of the Venezuelan opposition. No other groups or states make the suggestions made in this article. WMrapids (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With that being said, the content clearly meets WP:GNG and there's information that goes back decades and is clearly notable. I would ask the editor @WMrapids: to consider withdrawing the nomination after these changes. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I explained on the talk page, your addition was quite hasty and sloppily copied from a Spanish Wikipedia article. The sources you provided failed verification and did not support what you were trying to introduce. As I said in my conclusion, if we have some independent, reliable sources providing the same information, then that would be more appropriate and a withdrawal of my nomination would be considered. WMrapids (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you provided more details about this. At any rate, and while I work in improvements, it's clear that the article meets WP:BEFORE. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NoonIcarus. Meets WP:GNG. 23.156.104.104 (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a notable absence of sourcing - is there secondary peer-reviewed work on this? Leaving aside the geopolitical nature of the list, Venezuela has never been on the US State Department's List of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Accusations of this nature could be covered under United States–Venezuela relations. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the absence of reliable secondary sources discussing this topic in any detail, it does not meet notability requirements. At the moment the article is plagued by POV issues as well. AusLondonder (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: When you refer to the absence of secondary sources, do you mean to the original version or in general? I have expanded the article, you can let know your thoughts here, including about neutrality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus. Are there changes to the article and page title, removing "terrorism" that could be done through editing? Or do those editors arguing Delete see this as a TNT situation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , should be added in to a different larger article 109.255.35.74 (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Goldsztajn: Do you mean the current version or the article or overall? I'll leave here the original expansion that I proposed here to improve the issues:[5]
There are several academic works that cover this issue:
  • P. Sullivan, Mark (2011). Latin America: Terrorism Issues. DIANE Publishing.: Since May 2006, the Secretary of State has made an annual determination that Venezuela was not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts" (...) As a result, the United States imposed an arms embargo on Venezuela, which ended all U.S. commercial arms sales and re-transfers to Venezuela
  • C., Bonfili (2010). The United States and Venezuela: The social construction of interdependent rivalry. pp. 669–690. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help): 2006. In a hearing before the US Congressional Sincommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, a State Department official justified the embargo on grounds of official concern about Chávez overall actions against terrorism, his public statements in international forums addressing terrorism, his ties with states sponsoring terrorism, and his conduct towards terrorist organizations
  • D., Byman (2022). "Understanding, and misunderstanding, state sponsorship of terrorism". No. 45. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. pp. 1031–1049.: a country like Venezuela could easily be added to the list of state sponsors of terrorism
  • Rendon, Moises; Price, Max (2019). Are Sanctions Working in Venezuela?. Center for Strategic and International Studies.: [t]he Department of Treasury sanctioned dozens of government and military officials for charges including support for terrorism, drug and human trafficking, human rights violations, corruption, money laundering, other financial crimes, and illiberal behavior.
Investigative outlet Insight Crime has also written the following in the past:
  • Venezuela is a vital base of operations for dissidents from the former Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – FARC).[6]
  • For decades, Venezuela had been a safe haven for leaders of the FARC, whose insurgent war to overthrow the Colombian government began in the 1960s. Senior commanders such as Duarte could live free from fear under the protection of the Venezuelan state led by President Hugo Chávez and later his successor Nicolás Maduro. But Duarte was the fourth senior ex-FARC commander assassinated in Venezuela in the space of a year.[7]
  • Colombian guerrilla group the National Liberation Army (Ejército de Liberación Nacional – ELN) has used Venezuelan territory for decades, but its presence in the country has become increasingly important since 2000 as its Colombian operations have been squeezed by paramilitary groups and security forces. This coincided with the arrival of former Venezuela President Hugo Chávez in 1999. Chávez’s rise to power and his idea of ​​a socialist model for Venezuela was the ELN’s entry point. The political platform of the late president shared similar ideas with the ELN. This would eventually benefit the ELN and other guerrilla groups in Colombia.[8]
  • Two leaders of Spain’s Basque separatist group hiding out in Venezuela allegedly receive salaries from state entities, marking the latest accusations that the Venezuelan government aids and abets terrorist organizations.[9]
The issue has been covered by scholars and journalists, and not just politicians. The evidence mostly points out to the FARC and ELN guerrilla groups, designated as terrorist organizations by many organizations and countries, so most accusations actually have come from Colombia and not from the United States. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input is clearly necessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment After the article's expansion, the reason for the nomination is moot. The page has 24 references now, and now it doesn't cover just the position of the National Assembly, but also that of intelligence agencies, journalists and experts. The article should be kept. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with the article at present is that it is essentially an unnecessary WP:FORK of a geopolitical dispute between the US and the current Venezuelan government, which as I said above, should be covered in the Venezuela-US relations article. If this is to exist as a separate artilce and not suffer from COATRACK and UNDUE issues, it needs to cover *all* aspects of the topic, that is the various sponsoring states and historically. Some examples of missing topics:
  1. When Dominican Republic President Trujillo organised an assassination attempt on President Betancourt in 1960.[1]
  2. Betancourt's support for the Kennedy administration's assassination plots against Castro in the early 1960s[2]
  3. US support for counter-insurgency in the 1960s[3]
  4. Allegations from Philip Agee that in 1963 the CIA planted arms in Venezuela to appear to be from Cuba (CIA now claims was Cuban)[4]
  5. Claims of US state terrorism around the 2002 attempted coup.[5]
  6. Claims of US role in 2020 coup attempt[6]
  7. Further 2020 plots of terrorism[7]

References

  1. ^ Ginter, Kevin (June 2013). "Truth and Mirage: The Cuba-Venezuela Security and Intelligence Alliance". International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence. 26 (2): 220. doi:10.1080/08850607.2013.758003.
  2. ^ Rabe, Stephen (January 1996). "The Caribbean Triangle: Betancourt, Castro, and Trujillo and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1958-1963". Diplomatic History. 20 (1): 64. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7709.1996.tb00252.x.
  3. ^ Huggins, Martha K. (1987). "U.S.-Supported State Terror: A History of Police Training in Latin America". Crime and Social Justice (27/28): 149–171. ISSN 0094-7571. ...to be encouraged to use more "roving patrols" to hunt suspects. These changes on the part of the U.S. public safety team in Venezuela turned "the tide of battle...[so that] the cops were outkilling the communists."
  4. ^ Harmer, Tanya (August 2019). "The "Cuban Question" and the Cold War in Latin America, 1959–1964". Journal of Cold War Studies. 21 (3): 143. doi:10.1162/jcws_a_00896.
  5. ^ "Killing blamed on 'U.S.-trained terrorists'". NBC News. 19 November 2004.
  6. ^ "Ex-Green Beret led failed attempt to oust Venezuela's Maduro". AP News. 1 May 2020.
  7. ^ "Venezuela announces terrorism charges against alleged US 'spy'". The Guardian. 14 September 2020.

Personally, I see this article as a Pandora's Box for drama - the only NPOV way for it to be maintained is that all incidents deemed terrorism supported by a state are essentially relevant...and we go down the rabbit hole of what constitutes terrorism, who deems it terrorism and which source is really independent ... ad nauseum. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(opening Pandora's Box) - Insight Crime is a Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Department of State funded organisation, having recieved almost US$1 million from the US government since 2019. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Venezuelan Minister Calls US Sanctions 'Economic Terrorism' Voice of America, September 12, 2019. Economic state terrorism is state terrorism. I'm not trying to be facecious, just that if kept, this is the direction this article will also necessarily have to go. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We find that the sanctions have inflicted, and increasingly inflict, very serious harm to human life and health, including an estimated more than 40,000 deaths from 2017–2018". Economic Sanctions as Collective Punishment: The Case of Venezuela By Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs, Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2019. Goldsztajn (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the gist of your point, the scope of the article currently seems very clear and we're talking about different things: this page is about the confirmed or reported support from the Venezuelan state to terrorist organizations (not to be confused with state terrorism, which would be acts conducted by the state itself). This is consistent with other articles with the same convention: Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Qatar and even the United States themselves. If anything, in the case of the Assassination attempt of Rómulo Betancourt Venezuela was a victim of arguably state sponsored terrorism, and not a sponsor itself.
Most of what you're describing falls under the scope of the United States and state terrorism and United States and state-sponsored terrorism articles, which already covers topics such as the 1976 Cubana de Aviación Flight 455 bombing, for instance. Yes, there can be content covered at the United States–Venezuela relations article, but over half of the current content is related to Colombia and not the US, and that would be without going into details about relations with Spain (ETA) or the Middle East (Hezbollah). Even without taking into account investigations by Insight Crime, there is plenty of reporting by newspapers of record such as El País, El Mundo and CNN, as well as Venezuelan journalists and activists. This topic is notable and extensive enough on its own to warrant its own article.
Last but not least, is these concerns are issues that need to be fixed, thegy definitely fall under WP:BEFORE. Problems about content can be fixed through expansion or editing, not with deletion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the scope of the article currently seems very clear" ... according to you, but that's just an assertion. If the article is only about a geopolitical dispute between the US and Venezuela then this can be covered in the article on relations between the countries. If the article is about state-sponsored terrorism and Venezuela then we need it all. One can only argue keep on the basis that the article covers all matters related to state sponsored terrorism and Venezuela. One can argue delete on the basis that an article on the geopolitical dispute between the countries is redundant, a fork and already able to be covered in the US-Venezuela relations article. It's one or the other. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scope is ultimately decided by the community, to prevent original research. And once again: most content is unrelated to the geopolitical conflict between the US and Venezuela. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the claims you suggest would need to be included and would open the "Pandora's box" would not need to be included, either because they are not cases of state sponsorship of terrorism (1.-4.) or require taking Venezuelan government claims at face value (the rest), something even the cited articles do not do. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: After reviewing this great outline by @Goldsztajn: (following their opening of Pandora's Box), it seems clear that NoonIcarus is attempting to create a POV fork article, especially since they arbitrarily determined that these are no longer allegations in the National Liberation Army (Colombia)[10] and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia[11] articles. The majority of these sources are from adversarial governments (Colombia and the US) or from "independent" sources funded by one of the former. Despite the changes, I continue to believe that this article needs to be deleted and its content should be placed in more appropriate articles.--WMrapids (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very dissapointed at this comment because you specifically said that "[i]f we can have independent, reliable sources documenting Venezuela's support for FARC and the ELN, I would remove my nomination"[12]. The backpedalling is very clear and ignores the work of journalists such as those from Venezuela, CNN or El País. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Several comments. Please do not misuse WP:BEFORE, this is a process that occurs by the nominator before the AFD is started, not during the AFD. Read the policy. Second, an assessment of the sources brought up here would be useful for the closer, whomever that is. Finally, do not veer into a discussion of the subject matter here, that can happen if there is a decision to Keep this article on the article talk page and just serves to double and triple the size of this AFD which can discourage new participation (which is what we need right now). We could really use three or four of our AFD regulars assessing this article, in light of policy and the sources supplied.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – The article was appropriately expanded during the discussion with several sources. I don't see anything really consistent arguing for deletion, and sources contradictory to the main body of the scope can also be added in a dedicated session. Svartner (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gonna lean decisively towards keep here, mainly because this article is about a significant policy the Venezuelan government has perused for which there is pretty compelling evidence for. The decisive factor here is that the original editor's argument with regards the veracity of the sources of the article is marginal. The FARC and ELN are not necessarily terrorist organizations, but both have certainly engaged in narco-terrorism, not to mention, there's this guy: Tareck El Aissami. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kibble Park

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

Notability tag which I added in 2018 was removed. I believe this fails WP:NGEO. Almost all the gnews hits are very local Central Coast Community news. LibStar (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Harasimowicze. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harasimowicze-Kolonia

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czarnorzeczka‎ in that it is a subunit of Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka that is independent, but has nearly no sourceable information (population, etc.) to speak of. The only difference is that it is a sołectwo and has a sołtys and a council. However, I think this information is better suited for a table on the gmina's page (with the other sołectwa) per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOPAGE. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two different Redirect target articles suggested and we need to get that down to one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur with Piotrus regarding redirect to Harasimowicze (part of, and local, makes much more sense in terms of any sort of searching). --Ouro (blah blah) 12:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Moses

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

Unnotable mayor of a small city, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Several LA Times articles, though they really just seem to be WP:ROTM coverage about standard town going-ons. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this article was part of a previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas) and so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Middleton (footballer)

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

Little indication of notability other than a few WP:ROUTINE news articles. He never played above the fifth tier, seems to have been created because a user thought he played in the Premier League. However, this was an error on the Soccerbase website, he did not appear in the alleged 1995 match per the Premier League website and this news article. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-league player after not making it at Villa or Wolves. Went into banking, now running a training academy. That isn't enough for notability. Haven't found any additional sources and what is in the article doesn't meet GNG. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After almost a month, there is no consensus here, especially when considering changes made to the article Eddie891 Talk Work 15:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taras Sokolyk

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

WP:BLP of a political organizer, not properly sourced as having a genuinely strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. As currently written, the main notability claim here is that he exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of strong evidence that he would pass WP:GNG -- and while this is a pared-back version of an article that's been moderately longer in the past, I can't revert to older versions as they contained criminal allegations that can't be in the article at all without airtight sourcing for them, and might still just make him a WP:BLP1E anyway.
So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody wants to write a substantial article and source it properly, but the scandal can't be in the article at all without solid sourcing for it, and he just doesn't have any other meaningful notability claims if this is all that can be said about him outside of the scandal. Bearcat (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat - clearly fails GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Per WP:HEY. Also by 2008 he was CEO of a major Canadian hotel chain, so not BLP1E, although that wouldn't apply anyway given the sustained years-long coverage of the vote-rigging scandal.Central and Adams (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being CEO of a hotel company still isn't "inherently" notable in its own right just because you can minimally verify the fact — to become a notability claim that would secure inclusion in Wikipedia, that work would still have to be supported by a lot more ongoing "career" coverage about it than you've added here. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there have been major improvements and sourcing to the article since its nomination which haven't been assessed here in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for discussing the changes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digital motion X-ray

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

Not sure what else to say after reading this article, except ... WP:TNT applies unless this article can be merged or redirected somewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 06:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite if possible, otherwise delete: I can't help thinking there is something worthwhile hidden (very well hidden!) in here. Somebody who knows the topic needs to go through those references and use them to write an actual article. Failing that, I don't see any point in keeping it as it is...--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the nominator. The subject seems notable [13], the article is not worth keeping. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 08:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the content of the article creator's user page, DMX Works (talk · contribs), tells us everything that we need to know. Delete without prejudice to a non-advertisement being written, possibly not even at this title (as all too often these articles tend to be company-invented names for things). Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a thinly-veiled ad by a SPA COI. The common name for this technology seems to be Dynamic Digital Radiography. "Digital motion X-ray" may be a trademark owned by the equipment maker for which the author works. Owen× ☎ 22:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dror Bikel

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

this is slightly promotional, but anyways right now the only sourcing is about a court case with Judith Giuliani and other people and press releases. there's an interview but that doesn't work for sourcing so this fails notability. Password (talk)(contribs) 05:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed 109.255.35.74 (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask (as the creator)? Where is the GNG in the Wiki about Nancy Chemtob? MereSavel (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am genuinely trying to format this article to meet GNG and have looked at Robert Stephan Cohen as an example and cannot find where the qualifying source is. MereSavel (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you genuinely believe that the Chemtob and Cohen articles both lack qualifying sources and that you can find no others (take a look at WP:BEFORE), feel free to nominate them for deletion as well. Ravenswing 21:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My question here is: can anyone point out the qualifying source in Nancy Chemtob or Robert Stephan Cohen? I believe there must be a qualifying source and would like to know what that is so that I can highlight my article's qualifying source in a similar fashion. MereSavel (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon what basis do you believe that there are qualifying sources for those articles? Obviously there are any number of articles on Wikipedia that fall short. Tens of thousands of such articles are nominated for deletion from one process or another a year, but with nearly seven million articles, you can understand that some slip through the cracks for years. Sometimes many years. In any event, none of us are likely to analyze articles that are not now up for discussion without some strong reason to do so. All such deletion discussions are taken on their own merits. Ravenswing 10:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep: The content has been revised to include only cited, objective content. The article is encyclopedic as it is a useful resource for individuals training and working in the legal field as well as laypersons who wish to reference the counsel that handled certain publicized cases. MereSavel (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources meet notability requirements as legal commentator
Featured in The New York Times, People, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Inside Edition.
Provided commentary for Inside Edition, Brandi Glanville Unfiltered, Australia's The Briefing podcast, Bloomberg Wealth, Yahoo Finance, Gothamist, Newsmax, New York Post, Law.com, The Art Newspaper, and The Guardian. 174.247.179.180 (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous news sources name this individual. Meets notability as legal commentator
The New York Times
People
Business Insider
Inside Edition
New York Post
The Guardian
MereSavel (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MereSavel, you can only vote once. It would also be helpful if you could use WP:THREE to provide clear sourcing that appropriately supports your vote, thanks. She was afairy 02:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The advocacy (and reference bombing) of the article creator notwithstanding, the subject just plain fails notability standards, and meets none of the requirements of the GNG. Being a "legal commentator" satisfies no notability standard, and two dozen casual namedrops, bylines or press releases do no more so than one. I recommend that MereSavel review WP:GNG and WP:BIO going forward for a better understanding of Wikipedia's requirements. Ravenswing 00:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a bad article, though could be cleaned up. The problem is that not one source is about the subject. So it shouldn't be cleaned up. It should be deleted. gidonb (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Fails notability guidelines; sources are just mentions of the subject so no SIGCOV. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 19:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity Cox

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

Only routine and promotional coverage in low quality sources Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Wikipedia should represent all diversity, including people who work in the porn industry (an area Wikipedia itself wants to build out). Nearly half a billion views on PornHub is no easy feat, and people are interested to know the story behind these kinds of views and individual behind it. The "low quality sources" are highly respected publications within that industry, and proven to be factual sites. 2A00:23C7:BD94:4101:2000:A71D:505C:B905 (talk) 08:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AVN and XBIZ were found to be generally reliable, with considerations for the latter. Cortador (talk) 10:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The key concern about porn trade press is determining who is speaking. The AVN citation is an obvious press release. The XBIZ citations not only reek of churnalism, but they are largely base on what the subject or her promoters say. Depth of coverage is also a concern. Porn awards tend to be promotional fluff, and these sources don't appear to be exceptions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I would typically agree with you about industry awards, the Pornhub Awards (which have dedicated pages on Wikipedia) are based on site views and analytics so I consider these awards to carry more weight and be more substantial than “promotional fluff”. I also find AVN and XBIZ to be trusted source of truth. SanDiegoDan (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the original author of the entry, I feel I need to highlight my reasoning behind creating it. I firstly came here to create an archival history of the Pornhub Awards (which I still will), however after googling Serenity I created this entry. I found there were 100s of sites out there with unverified biography information on her, but I wanted to create a verified source of truth (based on citations) about this individual since she is my favourite model (and I imagine to many others based on views of her content across the web). Both AVN and XBIZ are reliable sources. SanDiegoDan (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Image uploaded has been published elsewhere, red flag number one. This [14] is the only non porn industry source I can find, somewhat trivial. Here, but we don't consider this a RS [15]. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seemed to over look the coverage in AVN (Adult Entertainment News) of which there is four articles (AVN is on the list of reliable resources) as well as several other publications, you have only chosen to mention the ones matching your narrative. I have also addressed the comment about the photo being a “red flag” within Wikimedia Commons (where you have also flagged that for deletion). For the most part here I feel personal beliefs on the porn industry are being imposed with flagging for deletion. If you were to ask anyone under 40 who Serenity Cox is, you would find at least 7/10 people would know. She has been on the homepage of Pornhub (the 4 most visited website in the world [16]https://www.semrush.com/trending-websites/global/all) pretty much daily for the last 3 years. Regardless of the industry, women should celebrated for their accomplishment (with personal beliefs aside), and not contributing to gender bias within Wikipedia (see Women in Red for more details on that). SanDiegoDan (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all coverage from the same sources. Gender bias is fine, but lack of sourcing is the issue. The last few articles I've created have been of either promotional models, influencers or the like, all of which have been female. I've attempted to source using RS; it can be done, but it's very difficult. We shouldn't waive requirements because of under-representation. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Issue with image has been resolved. Added additional "non-porn" related sources and will continue to research and update over the weekend. SanDiegoDan (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More sources have now been added. SanDiegoDan (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing is rather poor and achievements seem to be lower tier for the industry. Awards have been pretty much dismissed anyway for sole notability purposes. A number of other performers with bigger achievements/awards within the industry have been deleted because of there being insufficient sourcing. Since she's still active, the article can be recreated if better sourcing turns up in the future. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since my comments above, I have gone through the cited sources and did a WP:BEFORE search for better sources. The independent search found nothing useful. The 21 citations fall under the following categories: 1. generally unreliable (Fleshbot, WP:DAILYSTAR, Pornhub) 2. primary sources (quotes and interviews including MEL) 3. Promotional (obvious press releases from Pornhub, xHamster, etc.) and 4. non-substantial mentions (IMDb citations, award rosters, top 10 listicle entry). WP:BASIC and WP:ENT failure without reliable independent secondary source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided and notability is established not by how popular someone is on a website but by reliable sources and there is a fundamental disagreement on whether porn sources are reliable or unreliable PR fluff. But I have to say the cherry on the top of this discussion is reading that Women in Red champions writing articles on porn actresses to combat gender bias. That was hysterically twisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly offended that you think it’s hysterical that it wouldn’t account towards the Women in Red initiative, that is your bias that people in porn are less deserving of being credible for their achievements. However, it’s not our personal feelings or bias being discussed here so I will move on. I am appreciative that you haven’t instantly sided with the people saying there are no credible sources and are open to the discussion that porn sources could indeed be credible. Both WP:AVN and WP:XBIZ are both listed under Reliable Sources, are are heavily referenced on the Wikipedia page. The fact is, the porn industry is an under reported industry, I know it is not based on popularity, but industry resources should be recognized as Reliable Sources as they have no ulterior motive and are reporting on what is notable within the industry. SanDiegoDan (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your citations to WP:RSPS (WP:AVN/WP:XBIZ) should also note that both sources have caution flags attached. It is important to distinguish a news article from a republished press release. The porn trade press citations in the article are obvious promotional press releases, lacking intellectual authorship by the newsroom and independence from the subject or their promoters. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poor sourcing as comments above. FYI - I am one of the Women in Red, and have hung to the rear on this because I just don't want to be involved. But this is one of those situations, where if I don't speak up, I will always regret it. Wikipedia does not censor, however this is not a victimless industry. I thought long and hard before commenting here.  My "Delete" is based on, not what the porn fans see on screen (or wherever), but the sourcing issue. Also, later accounts by porn stars such as those of Linda Lovelace about how they were initiated into the industry. Serenity Cox was also initiated into the industry through her husband. Only she knows how accurate her article is. But the other side of the coin is the Opposition to pornography movement.  Some escape from the  industry, and later tell their story. That industry is not victimless, and the only way we ever know differently, is if a performer comes forward to tell their story.  — Maile (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should listen to her podcast interview on World Wide Celeb before making accusations like that about her husband. She comes across as educated and well informed about the industry. And the sourcing has come from RS on XBIZ and AVN (links above). SanDiegoDan (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't make any accusations. My comments were based on the article wording which you wrote: "Cox’s journey into the adult industry started in her thirties, as a hobby between her and her husband, documenting their sexual adventures in an open marriage. In 2021 they began sharing some of this footage on online platforms, and by 2022 they were posting regularly on PornHub" — Maile (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: AVN and XBIZ sources are fine, combined with the magazine article from Oaktree b there is enough here for a weak pass. Let'srun (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't believe the coverage of her in RS is significant enough to satisfy the GNG. An acknowledgment of an award plus one or two quotes are not going to cut it. Neither is her opinion of having sex on the beach. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE: Added additional news and citations. Also, it is worth noting the page has over 1000 views a day. There is certainly a demand for information on her. SanDiegoDan (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Five citations were added in two edits. The first edit was flagged by the system for using a deprecated (unreliable) source in two citations, the Daily Star. The Fleshbot citation is also junk. The second edit added a cite to XBIZ, award nominations roster, and a cite to AVN, which is marked as a press release in the URL. Porn award nominations were deprecated from PORNBIO 10 years ago. With 15 nominees per category, an AVN nomination is something for everyone, especially something for every studio. A claim of significance from a promotional source does not advance the case for notability. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AVN and XBIZ are essentially industry press releases, they are not sufficiently independent of the subject. The rest are primary sources, non-RS, or award / top 10 mentions. Zaathras (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, mainstream media rarely write about porn actresses, and she seems really notable. 2A06:C701:4BCB:5400:1ECC:D6FF:FE17:4CB3 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is an invalid keep rationale, provided by a 1-edit IP user. Zaathras (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keepDraftify – Sourcing includes relevant trade publications, I wouldn't say press releases. TLAtlak 02:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You would be wrong, we do not use AVN and Xbix releases to establish notability. Zaathras (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice now that they ring of press releases. Changing to draftify as a WP:ATD. TLAtlak 12:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT per review of available sources which are generally WP:SPIP and / or passing mentions. The arguments about AVN and XBIZ sources being sufficient are not valid as these are essentially rewarmed press releases (WP:SPIP) and are not sufficient for establishing notability. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Cahoon

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

while attempting to find sources, none other than database entries came up. fails notability i believe. Password (talk)(contribs) 05:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Brough

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

while finding sources for this biography, I only came across https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/jun/21/betty-boo-how-we-made-doin-the-do-slang-cunnilingus. this is a reliable source but it's just a few paragraphs from Rex Brough talking about an experience. this doesn't seem to meet GNG Password (talk)(contribs) 05:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am Rex Brough. My production work and songwriting can be seen on discogs.com
https://www.discogs.com/artist/379781-Rex-Brough
My radio production work can be seen on BBC Genome.
https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/search/0/20?q=rex+brough#top 2A00:23A8:444A:8A01:436:575B:79DC:88D9 (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've logged in this time to reply. "King John" was myself and John Coxon. "The Red King" was an alias for myself after I stopped working with John. Let me know how I can confirm this. My work is there on discogs, and my work for BBC radio, some of which won Sony radio awards is on BBC Genome. The "Rex Brough" page have some errors and needs updating. Rexbrough (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello, Rex, could you please review WP:RELY, WP:INDY, and WP:SIGCOV, and use WP:THREE to provide some strong sourcing? She was afairy 09:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this is sufficient as I'm not an expert at wikipedia stuff. If this is insufficient, then life's too short - delete my entry.
This is my profile on discogs, showing work I did over the years https://www.discogs.com/artist/379781-Rex-Brough
John Coxon and I (Rex Brough) wrote and/or produced severeal tracks on Betty Boo's album Boomania. If you look at the label credits, my name is there. https://www.discogs.com/master/80743-Betty-Boo-Boomania
I co-wrote and co-produced Definition of Sound's hit album Love and Life, which also contained 2 top 40 singels in the UK. https://www.discogs.com/master/132134-Definition-Of-Sound-Love-And-Life-A-Journey-With-The-Chameleons
My BBC work. I produced many radio programmes, working with John Shuttleworth aka Graham Fellows, Paul Merton, Meera Syal, Richard Wilson, the author Lynne Truss and many more. This is some of my credits on BBC genome.
https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/search/0/20?q=%22rex+brough%22#top Rexbrough (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as besides the nominator the only other uninvolved participating editor credited Wcquidditch, who did the deletion sorting, not the nominator, for their Delete vote which shows a lack of engagement with assessing this article and its sources. To the article subject, Discogs can supply information but isn't a source for establishing notability. Right now, we need more thoughtful participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Historian

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

3.97m subscribers is impressive but half of the sourcing is youtube, the vulture article is one tiny mention, and i don't think the plagiarism today article qualifies for a wikipedia biography. Password (talk)(contribs) 05:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I saw the page requested in the internet culture WikiProject page, so I did it because of that. I think he is notable enough for an article, maybe there just needs to be better sourcing. The plagiarism isn't supposed to be his biography, just a notable thing that happened recently. I tried looking for sources for the guy's biography, but he doesn't seem to be very public about his personal life. But I don't think a lack of personal details means that this isn't notable enough for an article. This channel has an influential presence on internet culture, so I don't see why he wouldn't be qualified, there are other public figures with secretive personal lives that still have articles. Ludensg (talk) 05:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well they do have a lot of subscribers, but that doesn't meet they qualify notability on Wikipedia (WP:BIO). if you can find strong sourcing please link them here and ping me Password (talk)(contribs) 05:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to ping, but here are the current references, which I believe do qualify this article on Wikipedia's notability policies.
"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
The sources, mainly a Forbes article, Newshub a notable New Zealand news service, and Critical Hit a game journalism website, provide significant coverage, and are independent of each other, and sufficiently reliable. This, without counting the hbomberguy (who is notable enough and also has his own wikipedia page) 17 million views youtube video for which Internet Historian was in part the subject of, and the multiple other sources that, although not exhaustive in coverage, this coverage is still beyond triviality, as Historian was a big part of these stories: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability".
Plus, the fact that Internet Historian's videos all range between 1.5 and 35 million views (with no video below 1.5 million), sufficiently covers notability for both of the requirements for entertainers. Ludensg (talk) 06:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to clarify again, views do not matter. BTW the Forbes article can't be used because it is made by "Senior Contributor". the other sources aren't bad, thank you for adding that, but they don't really talk much about Internet Historian, just a video and some quotes so i still don't think this meets notability. Password (talk)(contribs) 06:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Password1233210: figured out the pinging btw Ludensg (talk) 06:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I needed to figure out the Forbes senior contributor bit, so for others for clarity so much as I understood: Forbes senior contributors are not permanent forbes staff and are external to Forbes itself, and are not considered reliable sourcing for the purpose of Wikipedia. I used this. If this is a wrong understanding of the situation please correct me. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added more sources and a reception section. Ludensg (talk) 06:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm happy to strike this if another user does a WP:BEFORE and finds much better WP:SIGCOV on the channel. And firstly, it's awesome that someone put good time and effort into setting up this article and I think that is great and should be salvaged if possible. But unfortunately in its current state, the article's sourcing strikes me as indicating a non-notable subject. As stated above and at WP:NYOUTUBE, views do not matter if WP:SIGCOV has not been provided on the subject; something can be popular and not notable for encyclopedic coverage (see WP:ITSPOPULAR). Sources [1]-[3] are primary sources. Of the remainder, some are articles that in essence just summarise the content of a video ([4],[6]) or provide trivial mentions ([5]). Some of the sources are from reliable outlets. Others are not: Critical Hit is not considered a reliable source under WP:VG/S. At any rate, the way in which the subject is addressed in the sources provides little significant coverage or commentary about the channel itself in contrast to the things that the channel has talked about, which means that it is not really what I would consider 'reception' of the channel. That leaves whether the Plagarism and You(Tube) video by Hbomberguy makes the channel notable, either the video itself ([8]) or the articles about it ([7],[9],[10]). That coverage itself is pretty much just through the lens of the video about trends of plagarism in the video essay community. Whilst the video in question may very well be sustained critical commentary, it's not a reliable source about the subject generally as per WP:YOUTUBE-EL. It's fundamentally a primary source being a publicised opinion about the quality of the channel's research, and that is already handled on the Hbomberguy page. So as I see it, there are no sources that generally provide reliable secondary coverage of the channel as a whole, the creator and their background, and mainstream reception of their work by reliable sources. That suggests it falls short of WP:GNG in lacking significant coverage and well short of WP:ENT in lacking any coverage of their constructive contributions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Internet, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with Vrxces's analysis of the sources in the article already, I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE beyond similar articles that only discuss a single video or the hbomberguy plagarism video, although there may be something that I haven't found. Nothing that would count as passing WP:GNG or WP:ENT Shaws username . talk . 15:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Vrxces. A search of Newsbank database found a single brief mention of the subject in The Santa Fe New Mexican. I can't find sufficient WP:RSs to even produce WP:THREE. Fails WP:BIO. Cabrils (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails notability guidelines: not enough GNG sources found. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 19:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonse Teste

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

Biography article that, at this point, does not demonstrate how the person being biographed stands out from their peers and, consequently, makes it difficult to understand his/her eventual encyclopedic relevance. In this context, I bring it for community evaluation. Sturm (talk) 04:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nemeton TV

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

I'm not seeing enough coverage in independent sources to meet WP:ORGCRITE. While there's a fair amount of PR for this company floating around (e.g. [17]), significant coverage is scarce. The best examples I was able to find were this writeup of a university course that they sponsor and this article about their GAA coverage acquisition, which despite a promising title turns out to be almost entirely quotes directly from Nemeton's executives. signed, Rosguill talk 18:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ireland. signed, Rosguill talk 18:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, Sports, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment maybe the Nemeton TV is notable, however right not it's too related on primary sources and has lack of independent sources as said before. --Johnpaul2030 (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did some research and added significant coverage from The Guardian source, along with some Irish local sources, though they lack significant coverage. Maybe Irish folks could help more. I think the page should be Kept. Johnpaul2030 (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep there are some press releases online, and coverage on industry websites, as you might expect for a television production company that has been in that business for more than 25 years. As well as sponsoring some Royal Television Society Ireland and Scotland award categories, they had a nomination for Live Sport coverage at the RTS Scotland awards 2021. Beyond some of the online sports news articles that mentions Nemeton TV, there is some substantive press coverage which I have added to the article, for example the GAA streaming coverage in Waterford News & Star or the return of Live Action TV and celebrating 25 years both published by the Irish Examiner. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, current sources in the article pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 08:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The FuMP

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

There does not appear to be any reliable secondary sources or significant coverage outside of a couple brief mentions StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 since the last two relists. No point relisting again as the community doesn't seem to care if the article is deleted. Keep and redirect !votes are also not seconded in two weeks. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schulze STV

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

The article in its current form contains several unsubstantiated claims, e.g., about Schulze-STV satisfying Droop-Proportionality or monotonicity. Further, the method is not published in any peer-reviewed work or used by anyone else except for Schulze. As such it does not seem to meet the notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannikp97 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Schulze STV" is also known as "Schulze proportional". Although the paper "The Schulze Method of Voting" (arXiv:1804.02973) hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal because of its sheer length, it is cited in academic papers and frequently mentioned in discussions because of the Condorcet criterion for multi-winner elections this paper purports. Markus Schulze 11:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkusSchulze: am I right in assuming you are the Markus Schulze who invented the method described in the article? While I am honoured to be in the presence of the mathematician who came up with the polynomial-complexity Schulze method (and to a lesser extent, the exponential-complexity Schulze STV...), you should probably review WP:Conflict of interest before you continue editing articles about your work, or participating in discussions about those articles. We value your contribution to Wikipedia, none of which appear to be tainted by bias or self-promotion. However, to maintain neutrality and editorial independence, editors with an apparent conflict of interest must identify themselves as such, and ideally, abstain from editing pages related to themselves or their work. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Single transferable vote: where it is already mentioned. A well written article about this largely impractical voting system, but no notability to support a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think this would really be a valid redirect, since Schulze STV is quite different from regular STV. Jannikp97 (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many single transferable vote algorithms, and Schulze is one of them, which is why it is listed in that article. Owen× ☎ 14:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do really think that is true. STV usually refers to a precise family of rules. Schulze STV does not belong to that family, despite its name. Jannikp97 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worthy Wellness Foundation

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

spam from blocked paid editor. non notable business. bombarded with press releases and public relations announcements. some sources used dishonesty, not verifying the pages content. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: An article about a recent new PR agency, supported by PR sources. Discounting the announcement-based coverage of awards given by the company, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:03, 29 February 2024 (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! 00:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Paid advertising created by indef-blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Spam from blocked sock. Quasi-independent looking sources originate via WP:RSPANI, which could be legit, but in combination with bad-faith user... probably unmarked paid content.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ReLiva Physiotherapy and Rehab

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

spam from blocked paid editor refbombed to primary sources, routine announcements, pr and copyright violations on udrop duffbeerforme (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 29 February 2024 (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! 00:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - blatant advert for a non-notable enterprise. KJP1 (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Paid advertising created by indef-blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing as no consensus after a month of discussion and multiple relists. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anup Pandalam

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

I couldn't find enough information about this person from reliable sources. There's not much evidence showing they played a major role in the movies listed. I tried redirecting their page to a film they directed called "Shefeekkinte Santhosham," but it was reverted by the author. The subject doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources or meet the criteria for being recognized as an actor or filmmaker. So, it should be deleted or simply redirect it to the film they directed. GSS 💬 08:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. GSS 💬 08:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The sources were relisted that up to four articles (news sources) were used for citing the page. I wouldn't add a vote now but I needs a bit rewriting since there was a little move of notability. Otuọcha (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Otuọcha: The sources added by the author are nothing but reference bombing. None of the newly cited sources support whether the subject of this AfD has played a major role in the films listed in the article, so they don't meet WP:NACTOR. Most of the sources just briefly mention the subject, and the reliability of some is questionable. None of them really discuss the subject in depth, so they fail to meet the general notability guideline as well.GSS 💬 14:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nominator. Fails WP: NACTOR. The sources seems still remain questionable and barely not independent of the subject. The references were sort of mere mention and provides no stand of notability. Hence, fails WP: GNG, WP: NACTOR, a little of WP: CREATIVE. Otuọcha (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : He passes the 3rd criteria of Notability which says "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, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); " . He is the Director & Writer and also an actor of the feature film Shefeekkinte Santhosham . It is a well known movie and have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews in major newspapers. In addition this criteria passes for his television series Gulumaal for which he is the host and program producer. It has also been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles. Thus clearly passes notability. Additionally he is also an actor acted in 3 other movies for which references has been added as well. Passes WP:GNG Mischellemougly (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Mischellemougly (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
    Filmmakers who have only directed or produced one film may fall under WP:BLP1E, which is why I redirected the article to his film. Regarding Anup Pandalam, he has garnered media attention solely for his directorial debut, with no evidence supporting a major acting role in the films listed. Additionally, it remains unclear how he meets the criteria of GNG when there is no significant coverage of him in any source. Furthermore, the Gulumaal is not a notable TV show as required by Wikipedia policies, and the roles of host and program producer are not considered major roles in such productions. GSS 💬 08:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC) updated 08:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:NDIRECTOR as director of at least one notable film Shefeekkinte Santhosham in 2022. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC) (NB- I don't think WP:BLP1E applies, a film is not an event).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rydex64 (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will Malnati

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

Not seeing genuine notability per WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. The sources which exist are either non-independent, unreliable, or passing mentions. Much PR, but no in-depth coverage. Notability is not inherited from either the magicians' podcast or the company. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 29 February 2024 (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! 00:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 00:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puttshack

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

Not notable. No coverage past PR agencies and routine announcement. Award is not major duffbeerforme (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay:, nothing in WP:NCORP allows for notability simply for winning an award. Are there any references meeting WP:ORGCRIT that you found. Let me know as I may have missed some in my search. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41, I think you meant to ping Jax 0677. Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Thanks for the courtesy ping. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The Forbes article outlines big plans for expansion, but at the moment it seems to be still TOOSOON to be notable.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for clearly failing WP:CORPDEPTH. The only keep vote frankly does not make sense and should be ignored (keep the page as it could be redirected to an unrelated company). --Cavarrone 12:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus eventually formed that sufficient sourcing exists to support an article on this topic. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Museumand

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

I have nominated the article 'Museumand' for deletion. The creator disagrees so I have not treated it as non-controversial or simple. There is a discussion at the article's Talk page. In my opinion, the article fails on WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliabilesources and WP:WhatWikipediaisnot. In summary, the article describes an ostensibly extant museum and group of which there is insufficient evidence of existence, notability, verifiability or reliability. I will take no further part in the discussion. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Caribbean. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as the article creator I have expanded and updated this article substantially since Eastmain Emmentalist '(edited to correct name of prposer PamD 17:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)) expressed their concerns yesterday, and I believe that Museumand is a notable organisation as shown by their current exhibition at the Bank of England Museum and the one last year at Nottingham Castle, their podcast chosen as "best of the week" by The Guardian, and their other activities. Yes, their web site is currently displaying "Maintenance", but the fact that Google searches are still returning both the home page and many subpages suggests that the website and organisatiion have been alive and well in the very recent past: I have provided archived links to get past this, probably temporary, problem. Even if it was to turn out that the organisation is now defunct, that would not affect its notability: Wikipedia records history as well as the present.[reply]
The nominator, in talk page discussion, accused me of WP:OR because I found a catalogue entry for the book to verify it's existence: not my understanding of OR. They also appeared to suggest I was part of a PR operation for Museumand: my only connection with it is that I heard about it (almost certainly on BBC Radio 4, very likely on Woman's Hour) thought it sounded Notable, and created the article. I am not a paid editor and have no COI. PamD 14:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the nominator and so will not take part in the keep/delete discussion. However, for clarity I should reply to the comments above. In my comments at the talk page I write; "I absolutely presume that the Wikipedia article was created in good faith". My reference to WP:WWIN is instead to the way PR is designed to enter discourse and is often repeated by others in good faith. If I felt that WP:COI applied, I would have said that. As it happens, I do think searching for an obscure catalogue entry in a city library does likely constitute OR. Finally, When I nominated this article for AfD I made it clear that I was not using one of the simpler procedures since the article originator disagreed. It does not seem quite right, to me, that the article originator should now vote on their own article. But there it is. I appreciate, of course, that the final decision will not simply be a matter of adding up the votes. I'll leave it at that. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re searching for an obscure catalogue entry in a city library does likely constitute OR: the existence of the book was queried, I looked it up in Library Hub Discover, the union catalogue of most UK libraries, and found a record for it. WP:OR is defined as "original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists". Is it suggested that Leeds City Library's catalogue is unreliable? PamD 09:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not taking any position as to notability but @Emmentalist you're not quite correct on two elements. The author is welcome and encouraged to participate at AfD, and OR has nothing to do with researching/verifying the existence of a book via a library catalogue. As nominator, you don't !vote because your nomination is considered a vote for deletion in itself but you're otherwise welcome and encouraged to participate as well. Star Mississippi 14:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for this, @Star Mississippi Very helpful and educative point very much taken! I don't think such a book exists, by the way. As you imply, my main arguments relate not to whether a pseudo-book exists on one local authority library catalogue but to the separate issues of sufficient and verifiable coverage. Emmentalist (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emmentalist Note this which says "The exhibition ... is accompanied by a book of the same title (available for sale at the Castle shop). You really don't think it exists? PamD 23:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, @PamDI take @Star Mississippi's point. Let me make this one appeal to commonsense and goodwill. There is no doubt in my mind that two people identifiable on some websites, who call themselves Museumand, have written some blogposts and contributed to several institutions' displays on the UK's Windrush generation. I have argued here and at the Talkpage that this is most creditable but not sufficient of itself for WP:Notability and does not satisfy other WP policies. There is nothing to stop you revisiting Museumand in future so see if things have changed. I am also concerned, as a subsidiary point, that the article seeks to further claims of founding a national museum when they do not seem true in any substantive sense (for example, a museum is literally defined everywhere as a building with a large variety visitable exhibits. A 'museum without walls' is a catchphrase, not a museum). I am not super-keen to get into a theological debate about what constitutes a book/pamphlet/pseudo-book, to be honest. I suspect that some combination of ISBN number, publisher, author, etc, might be in order. The main thing here is that a statement in a website that something is available somewhere (but where there is no other evidence of that something's availability in book form) is not of itself sufficiently notable evidence of existence. At root, my argument is simply based upon the policies laid out earlier. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re a museum is literally defined everywhere as a building: not so, nowadays. See Virtual museum. PamD 17:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, @PamD. I took a look. You'll see there's a need for verification at that article. In the end, it seems to simply re-badge other things (databases, museum enhancements, etc) as museums in themselves. I think there's a profound epistemological question in play there. What next? I create a 'virtual' display around a horse and it's actually a kind of horse? Tbh, I'll leave that to others. :-) Defo nice chatting, though! Emmentalist (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Emmentalist You might think that a choir is a group of people who sing together in one place: but a Virtual choir can produce some amazing performances without ever meeting each other, or the conductor or the sound engineers. Times change. PamD 21:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting point @PamD. Thinking now........... Emmentalist (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Emmentalist I saw the above comment because this page is on my watchlist, but your "ping" didn't work because a ping has to be added in an edit which includes a signature, and your two-step process won't have had that effect. The trick is to add a new or replacement signature if you add a ping, or a second ping, as an afterthought or correction. There's always something new to learn about editing. PamD 22:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for this. Noted! I wondered why it looked wrong. Clearly, I have a lot to learn. And, frankly, not just about Wikipedia. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article has been expanded today with well-sourced content about Museumand's collaborations with a range of organisations over several years. PamD 14:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 Note that Museumand's website, which recently reported "undergoing maintenance" or some similar term, now says "We'll be back soon". PamD 14:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The comments above by the article's originator don't change things at all. The WP:GNG policies, and all the others referred to at the deletion nomination are clear and none of these new references satisfy them. The website status has no bearing on this discussion at all. For completeness, the new references are as follows:
    1. An archived webpage with no verifiable status and no publisher.
    2. A 2015 article from the webpage of a local media outlet serving Nottingham which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand (i.e. the title of the Wikipedia article).
    3. An archived webpage with no verifiable status. It appears to be a page from the Museumand website, which in turn has been unavailable since 2022 at the latest.
    4 and 5. Undated University-branded webpages which each make a reference to Museumand.
    6. A 2018 book title which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand.
    7. An undated Nottingham local history webpage which refers to Museumand.
    8. A 2018 BBC webpage which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand.
    9. A 2019 "Feast" website article which refers to Museumand.
    10. A 2021 University website which refers to Museumand in an event date.
    11. A 2020 webpage with no verifiable status (and no publisher which describes in detail the only two people ever associated with Museumand in any resource.
    12. A website with no verifiable status which refers to Museumand.
    13. A Hull news website which refers to Museumand.
    14. A website describing Nottingham Castle which refers to Museumand.
    15. A Nottingham City Council website which refers to Museumand.
    16. A PR company website which refers to Museumand.
    17. A Guardian webpage describing a podcasts which refers to the presenters of one as linked to Museumand.
    18. Webpage descriptor and link to podcast at 17 (above).
    19. A webpage which refers to Museumand.
    20. A blog written by the owners of Museumand, related to 19 (above).
    21. A 2020 blogpage (archived from the inaccessible Museumand website?) written by one of the Museumand owners.
    22. Ditto 21 (although some of the text appears unavailable).
    As has already been said at nomination, and noted by one editor who recommended deletion, the Guardian reference to a podcast related to the mother and daughter who appear to own Museumand might, if supported elsewhere, satisfy WP:GNG, but it is not supported; nothing else listed here reflects WP:GNG acceptable sources. The article fails on all the policies referred to at the nomination.
    No-one is questioning that two people in Nottingham have done excellent and worthy work in helping local Nottingham Museums and universities, and a couple further afield, mount displays; but Museumand is simply not a notable entity (indeed there is little evidence that it presently exists) which justifies a Wikipedia article. I have made the effort here to flag this all not to be mean, quite the contrary, but simply to uphold Wikipedia policies. It would be helpful if editors who make comments here do also make a delete/keep recommendation as this discussion already has too much from me and the originator and is on its final re-list. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Emmentalist, a few of your observations are made because the source does not mention Museumand by name. Didn't you read the discussion, including my post above, before making them? Until recently this was known as the National Caribbean Heritage Museum. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, @Phil Bridger. Of course I read the discussion, including your comment. Here is my reply: 1. The title of the article is "Museumand". It is clearly relevant if a reference does not mention that name. 2. I have gone to a great deal of effort to lay out how and why the article does not satisfy a number of WP policies, including WP:Notability. That includes following through on your suggestions of places to look for valid and reliable references. Can I just ask politely if you have read my fulsome comments?I appreciate that you have made the effort to make a brief comment here, but tbh it would be more useful if you took a view on delete/keep. If you feel that it should be retained, you simply have to say that you feel the references provided satisfy WP:GNG, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable Sources and vote 'keep'. I've made a genuine effort to justify the delete nomination; there has been one delete vote and no-one has yet argued against my WP policy-based rationale. I'm not interested in engaging in a continuous argument with editors who are not prepared to express an opinion. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Emmentalist, no it is relevant irrelevant (typo pointed out by PamD) what name a source uses to reference the subject. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. I assume good faith, of course, and I an see that you have made many more edits at WP than me, but I honestly find it difficult to understand why editors would take the time to make what are in the end multiple ephemeral comments about minor points without making a keep/delete judgement, the latter being the point of this discussion. I've laid out many points in defence of the substantive nomination for deletion; why not simply express a view? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't checked all the statements above, but I'd point out that ref 8 "which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand", is about an exhibition "being run in conjunction with the Nottingham-based National Caribbean Heritage Museum." and the article later says "the National Caribbean Heritage Museum, also known as Museumand". PamD 17:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And ref 6 "which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand" is included because it has bibliographic info about the book mentioned in ref 5, so complements that source in supporting the statement in the article. PamD 17:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And ref 2 "which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand" is clearly discussing its origins. PamD 17:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and some of this concern can be solved with a redirect from National Caribbean Heritage Museum which is already in place so there really is no issue. @Emmentalist there is no need for someone to explicitly note Keep or Delete nor the article to explicitly mention the current name. It's still the same org and coverage transfers with it Star Mississippi 17:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Star Mississippi The substantive issue is whether the references satisfy the policies. There's really no way that they do, imho. However, I don't agree that there is meaningful evidence that there is truly 'an organisation' involved here at all. I've already commented above about the aggrandised nature of a claim of a National museum. But in any case, why not simply say whether you think it's a 'keep' or 'delete' based upon WP policies? I honestly feel I've done enough here. It's up to folk like you to take a view, I think. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re ref 16: for "PR company" read "independent events and publishing company created to connect, inform and inspire. It is also a community of people who work in the world of museums, heritage and cultural visitor attractions who come together to learn, share and create" (from its "About us"), and for "refers to Museumand" read that the source describes two of Museumand's exhibitions in its roundup of events marking Windrush Day. PamD 17:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, let me re-word this as:
    Re ref 16: for what Emmentalist refers to as "PR company" read "a resource called Museums + Heritage Advisor which describes itself as 'independent events and publishing company created to connect, inform and inspire.' and says of itself 'It is also a community of people who work in the world of museums, heritage and cultural visitor attractions who come together to learn, share and create' (from its 'About us')", and for "refers to Museumand" read that the source describes two of Museumand's exhibitions in its roundup of events marking Windrush Day.
    PamD 12:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references meet WP:THREE. Specifically, the BBC news article, which is independent, reliable and significant coverage of the National Caribbean Heritage Museum / Museumand; the Guardian article about the podcast; and the Museums and Heritage article. I see that the other references are not all independent, but they do verify that the organisation is involved with other notable organisations like the Bank of England and Oxford University. Tacyarg (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that the organisation is mentioned in a couple of books, Mother Country: Real Stories of the Windrush Children and Today: A History of our World through 60 years of Conversations & Controversies, both reliable sources, publisher is Hachette. I haven't added these to the article as they don't add any content to that already there, but it does show coverage of the organisation. Tacyarg (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PR

I assume good faith from all editors here, but the comment above, full of transparent PR nonsense, is untrue and has made me worry whether PR interests might, one way or the other, be intruding into this discussion. M&H Ltd, which appears to be the source of some of the website references referred to in this discussion and is described by @PamD as; "a community of people who work in the world of museums, heritage and cultural visitor attractions who come together to learn, share and create" is a wholly privately-owned PR and events company[1] which self-describes elsewhere as; "an independent events and publishing company". I have made a genuine effort to show how this article does not conform to WP policies. I do not want to engage any further in what is beginning to feel to me like a discussion with an opaque purpose. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not "described by" me as: I quoted their own self-description and made this quite clear. PamD 11:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10028315

COI?

The introduction of a heading, above, has disrupted the normal flow of an AfD discussion so I see no option but to introduce another such heading. @Emmentalist: has now suggested on my talk page that I may have a COI with Museumand.

In the interest of clarity, I disclose here an email which I sent to "hello@museumand.org" on 15 Feb:

Hallo

I created a Wikipedia article about Museumand a couple of years ago, I think after hearing Catherine and Lydia on Radio 4. It's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museumand, though someone else edited it to call you a "group" rather than a "museum".

Your website seems to be "under maintenance" and the person trying to delete the article (as "not notable" in Wikipedia's very specific terms) claims that it seems to have been so for some time, so that Museumand may or may not still exist. I can see that the SKN CIC records at Companies House are up to date, and that you've got a current exhibition at the Bank of England Museum. Is the web site likely to reappear in the near future? I hope so. Or, if Museumand has folded in the last few months, is there a newspaper or magazine or website article about its closure, which would help prove that it was notable, even if it no longer exists. (Wikipedia is about history as well as today).

Best wishes, anyway!

Pam

Is that COI? Or an attempt to improve the encyclopedia? I have had no reply, but I note that the website has changed from "Maintenance" to "Back soon" since I sent that email. I have had no other contact whatsover with Museumand, apart from hearing a radio feature about them in the first place and researching them online. PamD 12:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call this a COI @PamD.
@Emmentalist your readings of policy & guidelines does not (edited Star Mississippi 16:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)) seem to agree with the general community's in several instances as I've noted above. You've made your case here, I suggest you let others weigh in. If you think there's a conduct issue, feel free to take it to the relevant notice board. Star Mississippi 16:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Star Mississippi So we're entirely clear, I followed the WP:COI process and opened a discussion at @PamDs Talk page, not here. If I may say, I honestly don't understand why you are prepared to take part to such a degree in a deletion discussion at the margins (i.e around minor points of quibble) rather than taking a delete/keep view on the substantive policies I've made a considerable effort to lay out. Perhaps you could help the process by take a keep/delete view based on the policies? Whichever view you take, it would be very helpful and constructive. For clarity re: COI, I will not confuse the AfD by discussing that here (it is at @pamD's talk page), but I will say that contacting Museumand and effecting a change at the website, and misdescribing a PR company (which I have indications may have a paid interest in the Museumand issue) as a community the relevant user might be part of, go well beyond Wikipedia article editing and quite possibly into WP:COI. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emmentalist you have chosen to badger participants who doesn't agree with your POV, beginning with saying @PamD shouldn't participate as article creator and misunderstanding or misapplying policies such as OR. Once I took a clerking/admin action, it is my personal belief that I won't take a content position. But for future AfDs, please remember it's about discussion, not named !votes. As a closer, conversation helps more than the bolded portion. If you have a substantive case to back up your repeated COI allegations, please take them to the relevant notice board. Star Mississippi 19:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(afer edit conflict) I, for one, am genuinely undecided about the disposition of this article, but policy is that the decision should be made on the basis of sources for any name by which it has gone. There is far too much making of decisions before thought at AfD. The reverse should be done. This is a discussion, not a vote. And the idea that PamD has a conflict of interest is simply preposterous. You do yourself no favours by making such a claim. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC) And I find it very hard to argue against someone named after cheese, which I just love.[reply]

AfD discussion so far

Hi, @PamD, @Star Mississippi and @Phil Bridger. I nominated Museumand for deletion. I've provided, in my opinion, a great deal of evidence that the article does not satisfy WP policies. I've specified the relevant policies. WP:Notibility is perhaps the most significant one. In my view, @PamD has edged into WP:COI; I've provided reasoning for my view (although I do not suggest that it is not arguable) at the relevant Talk page as laid out as the first step at WP:COI. I have done all this in good faith. In response, @PamD has accused me of "trying to wreck" an article (I am simply trying to delete it as per WP policy) and I am now accused of badgering. In addition, @Star Mississippi and @Phil Bridger have approached the discussion in a way which avoids taking a substantive view while offering, in my view, ephemeral comments which take no view at all on delete/keep. This is an AfD discussion and to seek to constrain it to marginal issues appears, to me, something which might limit discourse so that it does not reach a consensus/conclusion. As with all edits, this is a learning experience for me. I assume good faith on the part of all editors, but I am honestly puzzled as to why experienced editors are so unprepared to make a judgement against the criteria laid down in the relevant WP policies. I will leave my comments at that and move on. Thanks for taking the time to chat, and all the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that @Star Mississippi, an admin, intervened above to point out Emmentalist's misunderstanding of the procedures for AfD (2:33 pm, 18 February 2024), and has since said Once I took a clerking/admin action, it is my personal belief that I won't take a content position., which is an honourable position which has excluded them from making a !vote.
I am also tired of being accused of COI. My only connection with Museumand is that, having heard them featured in a radio programme, I decided to create an article about them, and I have since sent one, neutral, email which I copied above. Naturally, as the creator of the article, I do not want to see it deleted. I don't see the phrase "trying to wreck" anywhere: on my talk page I mentioned that Emmentalist seemed "intent on destroying" the article (let's face it, nominating an article at AfD is indeed an attempt to remove, wreck, destroy, obliterate, annihilate... all synonyms for "delete" in this context), but their determination to pursue this AfD certainly gives that impression, with their inaccurate statements such as that relating to reference 8 and repeated accusation of COI. PamD 13:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of your last 50 edits have involved trying to get this deleted. Coming on the heels of an account that was created to an AfD an article, it reads a little off @Emmentalist. Regardless of how this closes, I recommend you take a deep read into the policies and guidelines before another AfD. It will help ensure the process goes more smoothly. Star Mississippi 00:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have adhered strictly to all policies. You are welcome to examine my editing history, which I think you will find is careful, always in good faith and represents a proper application of policy. You refer to my editing of 2022: that AfD was indeed what brought me into editing as it was a very poor article; the article was deleted. You have, on the contrary, refused to take a position on the substantive matter of an AfD discussion; i.e. whether the article should be kept or deleted. With great respect, I really feel that we've taken this discussion as far as we can. Perhaps other editors will express a view now, or alternatively an admin will close. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per rationale by User:Tacyarg above references meet WP:THREE. Theroadislong (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see reliable sourcing on the page sufficient to meet GNG. The name change does make the search more challenging. I'm quite confused by the non-standard sectioning in this formal process. BusterD (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - wow, this has turned into a mess, so I'll take my rational back to basics: I count WP:THREE so we can establish N; the rest of the nomination is outside the scope of AfD (WP:NOTCLEANUP) and not needed in a keep decision. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 16:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Malware#Grayware. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greynet

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

This article had 3 references which were not inline citations; the references it did have were all dead links. I've searched for 'greynet' but can only find a link to a literature service and a link to the article itself. The article has 82 pageviews in the last 30 days and before my edits, the last edit was from July 2020. The original author '63.192.141.33' has not posted on WP since June 2007. WP:GNG and possibly WP:ARTN. Richard Nowell (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found this: [18]; I don't know about the reliability of the source. Also there's this academic piece: [19], but I think it might be using the term "greynet" in a slightly more specific sense than the article is. Lots of blog entries and useless content-farm-style hits as well. Based on these sources I would say weak keep. I might be persuaded to change my mind if nothing else is found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The second reference is referring to something completely different from this article - it's referring to a set of IP addresses as a "greynet", not a type of unauthorized software. If anything, it goes to show that the term didn't have a well established meaning. Omphalographer (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankyou for finding those two sources. Any interest in Greynet seemed to be in the period 2005 - 2007, but the article, to me, seems out-of-date at the least. The sentence: "An emerging category is "podcasting", in which users generate content for widespread download on portable MP3 players" is as if from another time. This article and its content seem past its sell by date (or perhaps I'm suffering 'bad tech article syndrome'). As for it being advertising, I couldn't say. Richard Nowell (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a failed neologism. System administrators typically call this sort of thing "unauthorized software" nowadays. Omphalographer (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:54, 29 February 2024 (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! 08:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Malware#Grayware: The articles linked above either use a different definition, or are a synonym for Grayware (as the current Greynet article is). The sources on the Greynet page are either not longer accessible, or are weak, hence the suggestion of redirecting rather than merging. The synonym should be marked at the target (e.g. "(sometimes, Greynet)"). Klbrain (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Réseau Art Nouveau Network

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

No indication of notability, mostly unsourced DrowssapSMM 02:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion lacked specificity, it's not evident from the deletion nomination that BEFORE was done, and "looks notable to me" comments are not useful in any way, shape or form, I can't tell whether the article was even read. I don't find most of the comments in the AFD persuasive. Maybe a return trip to AFD in six months would be warranted. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Staats

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

Does not seem to clear notability requirements as an academic or businessman. Remsense诉 01:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he does meet notability requirements. He is the research director at the Space Analog for the Moon and Mars at the Biosphere 2, affiliated with the University of Arizona. He is also the lead developer of SIMOC an interactive simulator built on NASA data that is on the National Geographic's website. At a NASA Human Research Program conference this year, NASA researchers even know him. Additionally, a number of recent technical papers in peer reviewed journals related to life support systems include him as an author and sometimes as a senior author. I can help update his webpage in the next month or so. Spacesurgeon (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point to specific coverage per our general notability guideline, or better, our notability guideline for academics? Remsense诉 02:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - from a spaceflight perspective there is sufficient notability here: https://biosphere2.org/about/leadership-directory (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Delete Reviewing the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics), Staas appears to have undertaken considerable research but does not pass the threshold for "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Being recognized by NASA researchers also does not constitute "a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity," but I recognize that there could be documentation of notability that is missing. Additionally, I am concerned by the fact that the original author of this article was paid by Staas to write it and, after COI issues were explained to the author, the page was edited by Staats himself. WP:NPOV and WP:NOR seem to be ongoing challenges to quality. Vegantics (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Vegantics, Soft Deletion is not possible if any editor has argued to Keep an article. Or if the article has been subject to a PROD or prior AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have included his position as Research Director, developer of SIMOC a web interface simulator listed under Nat Geo for modeling life support systems. I have also listed a couple of publications for research he has done in modeling life support systems. Spacesurgeon (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added content related to Staats' position as research director and current work being done on modeling life support systems. These are verifiable on a university website and by publications, respectively, but these were deleted. Why? Spacesurgeon (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks notable to me. Sufficient sources that meets GNG. Mevoelo (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems to be contradicatory understanding of whether or not WP:NPOL is satisfied here that would warrant a discussion on a policy talk page. And I just have to add that this is a terrible, just terrible deletion rationale. If I had seen it when this AFD was first posted, I might have done a procedural close just based on that alone. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Ticona

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

Unimportant person with little information available. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 03:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a Deputy Minister is important and there’s available information in RS, but his article needs a lot of work. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no-nnotable for WP. And Strong objection to nom's wording "unimportant person". Nobody in the world is unimportant. Being non-notable for Wikipedia is not the same thing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a deputy minister he must surely have been an office-holding politician in a national government and so meets WP:NPOL (which presumably the nom hasn't read) - more refs wouldn't go amiss but not appropriate to delete.Ingratis (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC) (see below for why I'm still keeping the Keep) Ingratis (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I'm willing to reconsider if somebody can actually locate stronger evidence of notability than the article shows. A deputy minister isn't necessarily an NPOL-passing politician — it can also be a civil service role held by an unelected bureaucrat, so it's in no sense "inherently" notable without more substance and sourcing than this. But the footnotes exist almost entirely in the context of his fatal car accident, with virtually no evidence of any career coverage about his work in the role shown at all, which means we can't just presume notability that hasn't been adequately supported. We can't extend him "inherent" notability under NPOL #1 unless we can actually find evidence that he actually held a role that would pass NPOL #1 — a deputy minister may be a member of the legislature in some places and an unelected bureaucrat in others, so we would need to properly verify that he was ever actually in the legislature rather than just assuming that he was. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right - he was a lawyer, not a politician, and apparently appointed. Nevertheless, a Deputy Minister is not nothing and he gets a biography of reasonable length in the press: [20]. Also, his death was not just a random traffic accident but directly caused by his exercise of his duties, and receives a lot of press overage. So I'm going to stay with Keep. Ingratis (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This basically fails WP:MEMORIAL. It's flagrantly unclear to me as to whether deputy ministers pass NPOL, but I wouldn't assume so considering they are deputies, and his unfortunate early death appears to have just been one event and not WP:LASTING (the coverage of him while alive doesn't appear to be significant coverage of him.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd probably lean towards a Bolivian Vice-Minister's position not satisfying NPOL. These are sub-cabinet level positions, appointed by ministers without assembly approval. We've had discussion before regarding NPOL and deputy ministers in presidential systems: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faruk Kaymakcı. No prejudice against possibility of satisfying the GNG/BIO. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per SergeWoodzing's comment.  Mr.choppers | ✎  11:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some of the comments given here don't make much sense, from an English-language perspective, but those arguments which are persuasive are for Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line

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

I decided now to nominate this article for deletion, after thinking for some time. The article is essentially a recreation of a similar one that was deleted. Questionable notability, the only notability claim that uses sources that are independent of the subject or its owners is about a complaint by a Pampanga-based business group. Other than that, much of the article is an original research (WP:OR), and several of the sources are discouraged primary sources, most especially those connected to the power transmission firm and the surveys or studies that are considered primary (not secondary). Insufficient reliable sources that are independent of the subject or its owners or research firms, and secondary. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to move the message? Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 15:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I doubt we can get more editors interested in discussing the fate of an article about a transmission line but right now we need more participation. As for the discussion thus far, it's hard for me to make sense of it. Can we return to talk about sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. @User:Liz I'm responding to Your call for participation and FWIW I'll try to find time over the weekend to take a look at this article. Pieces of infrastructure may be notable but don't necessarily need to be. For the moment I assume good faith in terms of the article. Hope to get back to You in a couple of days with some information. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I must this page is to keep it because some viewers curious in NLEX. Keep this page for all curious viewers Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 08:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shonyx unfortunately, much of the sources are not independent of the subject. NGCP and DOE are not counted as reliable sources because they are connected or related to the subject, thus the sources are non-independent and do not give weight to the notability of this article.
    Also, too many original researches, which are discouraged, read WP:OR. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR/NPC) and National Transmission Corporation (TransCo), although both were also involved in the transmission line and its associated projects when they operated and maintained the Philippine power grid (NAPOCOR/NPC from June 1994 to March 1, 2003 and TransCo from March 1, 2003 to January 15, 2009), are also not counted as reliable sources because they are connected or related to the subject thus the sources coming from them (or company name shown (none at all for the case of lands and rights-of-way (ROWs) or portions acquired and designated by NAPOCOR/NPC where it simply says "Danger: High Voltage Keep Away") on high voltage signs because that company was the one designated and acquired the lands where the structures/facilities are located and portions of a power line when the line and their structures are seen physically or on Google Maps) are non-independent. Ervin111899 (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the original sources Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 11:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The excessive use of the original sources can be discourage to viewers Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 11:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shonyx we need more secondary sources, like SunStar source used in the controversy section. Significant coverage of the transmission line in reliable, independent secondary sources will give more weight than non-independent sources (like DOE etc.) or primary sources (like NGCP, TransCo etc.). This ensures the article is neutral and not providing facts that unreasonably favor the people or organizations heavily connected to the subject, like NGCP and DOE. Secondary sources may include reputable news outlets or agencies, like Philippine News Agency, Rappler, GMA News, ABS-CBN News, or Manila Bulletin. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We don't need editors extolling the benefit of secondary sources, which we all already know, we need opinions and arguments from editors on what should happen with THIS article. Without more decisive opinions, this discussion right now could close as Soft Delete or No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz we already have precedent, and that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermosa-Balintawak Transmission Line, targeting the article of essentially the same subject and was closed as delete. Ervin111899 recreated this article, using primary sources and applied WP:original research. I should have nominated this recreated article earlier, but as they say, better late than never. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only notability claim that uses sources that are independent of the subject or its owners is about a complaint regarding the relocation of the line's San Fernando section by a Pampanga-based business group. Other than that, the article mostly contains primary sources (information that came from National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR/NPC), National Transmission Corporation (TransCo), and National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) which are companies that were involved on a power line and its associated projects during their operations and maintenance (O&M) period on the line, whether on documents for the construction of a power line and its projects or physically (Danger: High Voltage signs placed on steel poles or lattice towers)). Ervin111899 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Reywas92Talk 20:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump v. United States (2024)

Trump v. United States (2024) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is part of Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case). Trump was indicted for election obstruction and filed motions to dismiss the indictment on the basis of presidential immunity, now to be decided by the Supreme Court. This is already covered at Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)#Immunity dispute. My redirect to that article was reverted on the incorrect claim that "the cases are different", and I don't see the need for a separate article at this point. Reywas92Talk 03:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 03:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — United States v. Trump has not been appealed to the Supreme Court, only the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision, thus making Trump v. United States a separate case. If the Supreme Court rules that Trump is not immune from prosecution, United States v. Trump will continue to play out. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nearly all SCOTUS cases are standalone notable, and while the details so far of this case are part of the Federal prosecution article, the question of presidential immunity is a self-contained aspect of that, so it is reasonable to have a separate page to cover the SCOTUS case. This should be done by moving the existing content into the SCOTUS page case (along with appropriate attribution), and leaving a summary in place. Alternatively, when the case is ultimately decided, and can be summarized briefly on the prosecution page, then the details can go into the SCOTUS page. Either way, there will eventually be a separate page for the case so deletion makes no sense. --Masem (t) 03:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why was this AFD started just a few hours after this article was created? Is there some kind of urgency about it? Quick AFD nomination just seems to happen a lot with article based on news and politics. Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is opposed to most, if not all page splits. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't a page split, it was a single sentence. Was there really some kind of urgency to get this still-mostly-empty page started? You could have at least done what Masem recommends, but instead this page provides no further information. Reywas92Talk 23:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was noting your position on page creations, not that I disagree. I typically write articles from the ground up but publish them early in order to avoid any conflicts, furthered by the existence of Trump v. United States, the special master case. Nominating stubs without giving due time is WP:TOOSOON, and I wasn't going to let this article remain a stub. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Masem said, this is a notable case in the Supreme Court and its widespread precedent on Wikipedia to have standalone articles for cases like this.
Timetorockknowlege (talk) 06:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Already seems to pass WP:GNG. Don't really understand the nomination. SportingFlyer T·C 16:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The only good argument for deletion/draftification I could see here is WP:TOOSOON, but I don't think it's too soon to start this article, given that cert has been granted and there's already significant coverage of the case. Regarding the nominator's point that this is part of the election obstruction case, while true, Supreme Court cases take on a life of their own beyond the individual case, and this article would eventually need to be split from the election obstruction article, so I don't see a point of merging it now. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's a high-profile pending Supreme Court case. CarpCharacin (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Surgery (album)

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

The band has just been nominated (by me) for deletion. The band was already twice deleted from Hewiki. The band's other album has just been redirected, as the band article was still there. This album has been deleted in a previous AfD and was recreated. Any and all are non-notable. gidonb (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NALBUM from sources presented here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet spot (sports)

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

Unsourced since 2009, mostly a dictionary definition DrowssapSMM 02:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Withdraw: article has been significantly improved. DrowssapSMM 16:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Verifiability is a non-negotiable policy, and 15 years is long enough. The Heymann criterion should be to add two reliable sources within the next seven days after this second relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTDICT. Already covered at Glossary of baseball terms#S and could readily be added to similar articles for other sports. Nigej (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Let'srun (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems more in place in a dictionary. AA (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems rather interesting and odd that none of the delete !voters above have addressed (or even mentioned) the sourcing provided in this discussion long before they arrived, so I don't see how they could carry much, if any, weight. They look like drive-by editors casting personal opinions who didn't bother to read this discussion, review the sources, or consider important matters like WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Meanwhile, in addition to the sources previously presented, I also found these two books which offer extensive in-depth secondary analysis of the sweet spot concept, further strengthening the case to keep the article. Left guide (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG with the multiple sources of significant coverage (for multiple sports even) identified by user Left guide above. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP (but adding sources to the article can only mitigate false impressions).—Bagumba (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. What do those editors arguing Delete think about the sources brought up in this discussion? Could any of those advocating Keep add them to the article? If this subject is mentioned elsewhere, then why isn't anyone arguing for a Merge or Redirect as an ATD? This is a juggling act.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The above sourcing covers just baseball and cricket. For tennis, there's this article from a university engineering department magazine which offers a rather large section dedicated to the sweet spot concept; at the very bottom it also cites as one of its references H. Brody, ”The Physics of Tennis II: The ‘sweet spot’.” American Journal of Physics, vol. 49, pp. 816, 1981., which is a peer-reviewed scientific journal offering dedicated coverage of this concept. Then there's this book published by a university press; chaper 2 is titled The Sweet Spots of a Tennis Racket and spans 16 pages (23-38). Left guide (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourcing is adequate. This is more than dictionary definition and I see lots of room for expansion. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We've been given lots of sources about the baseball sweet spot, the cricket sweet spot, the tennis sweet spot, etc. What we're lacking are sources about the sweet spot in sports generally. Are there good sources discussing the concept as it applies to all sports. So while the concept relates to many sports, I'm still not convinced that we need an article on it. As I noted above the concept can be covered for specific sports, either within an existing article or even as separate article if there's enough content to justify it. Nigej (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be a WP:BROADCONCEPT page:

    Due to the difficulty of explaining this relationship (and the comparative ease of merely listing articles to which the title relates), editors often create disambiguation pages for such titles, even though there is an unambiguous meaning that can be discerned from the relationship between the listed topics.

    —Bagumba (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You raise some very good points to consider. I'd argue there's enough sourcing to justify separate articles on the sweet spots for baseball, cricket, and tennis if a split is a palpable resolution. However, there is also plenty of generalized interconnected coverage of this concept across all sports, tying them together; some examples:
  • On page 719 of this book, it says: If we compare baseball and tennis with cricket, baseball bats are made up of solid wood or hollow aluminum barrels and tennis rackets are made up of composites. All the batsmen know that there is a special spot on a cricket bat where the shots feel very smooth. It sometimes feels so good that there is almost no sensation at all that the bat hit the ball. It is the same with a tennis racquet or a baseball bat. These areas have been given various names such as sweet zone, sweet spot, etc. A sweet spot is a position that is identified by the batsmen at the best location of the bat with which the ball comes in contact and gives the maximum exit velocity.
  • There's also page 202 of this book which demonstrates and explains a mathematical physics equation needed to find the sweet spot; included in its commentary is This is the ideal point at which to hit a ball with a bat (sometimes called a 'sweet spot' in sporting applications — cricket, tennis, baseball, etc.)
  • Then page 365 of this book is unfortunately sandwiched between two pages not visible to me on preview mode, but from that page alone it says Considerable work has been done on the physical interpretation of the 'sweet spot' and its location on the cricket bat using the research on baseball bats as the basis. It is possible to establish such correlations as the mechanics of swinging the bat is similar for both games. The length and weight of the cricket bat and baseball bat are also similar…Based primarily on extensive research on tennis racquets and baseball bats, today it is widely accepted that there are other impact locations on the bat that are capable of producing the greatest post impact ball velocity. That page alone also cites about ten other sources inline which can be referred to.
  • In this book, Chapter 4.5 titled "Angular impulse and the centre of percussion" begins with Have you ever wondered why a cricket bat, a baseball bat or a tennis racquet has a sweet spot? This is the point on the bat where the ball seems to be hit most cleanly, without producing much vibration in the handle followed by a demonstration and explanation of the mathematical physics equations required to calculate the position of the sweet spot.
These sources show a great deal of analysis on the sweet spot concept in a manner that cohesively ties all the sports together. These are mere snippets (as in there is a lot more about sweet spots than just what is quoted) so as not to needlessly overwhelm this discussion, but please read and go the sources to see the full depth and breadth of coverage for yourself if you still have any doubts or questions. Left guide (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article has been improved dramatically since its nomination and Left guide's research clearly shows there is extensive sourcing on the concept which can be used to improve the article further. Hatman31 (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good sourcing and I can see future improvements in place. Can't see this being merged to something. 🍪 CookieMonster 04:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 whether to keep or redirect. This discussion can continue on the Talk if desired. Star Mississippi 23:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man Alive (band)

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

Non-notable band. No coverage in RS, also by NEXIST. Promotional writeup. Circular sourcing, for example here: On June 11, 2012, it was announced on the band's Facebook page that the band has decided to record a new album., i.e. the band member(s) make "announcements" on FB then quote themselves on WP. Has already twice been deleted at Hewiki. No updates since 2013. gidonb (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is the reverse of the usual procedure, because there would then be an orphaned album article with no connection to a band. The fact that the one album got some reliable reviews might actually enhance the band's article, but not by much. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520 while it is true that the usual case is a notable band and a non-notable album, here we likely have a case of WP:ONEEVENT. The album contributes to the band's notability but not enough to fulfill any WP:BAND criteria. Broc (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear more opinions on this discussion. Doomsdayer520 is correct, we typically turn non-notable albums and songs articles as redirects to a musical group's page. I have even seen articles deleted because there was an album article but no article on the band.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We still need more opinions. The nominator is advocating Deletion and an editor argues for a Redirect to an article, Open Surgery (album), that is also at AFD. Two or three more points of view would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album (if the album survives the AfD). PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Normally I would be indifferent about an AfD for a mid-level band like this, but talking about redirecting the band's article to one of their albums, just because that album got a whopping two reviews that anyone can find, is downright absurd to put it lightly. The album reviews have some basic band history that can be used to support the band's article: [21], [22]. Also they have a reasonably robust AllMusic biography: [23]. Here's a little more news from one of the magazines that reviewed the album: [24]. That's enough for a stub article for the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are niche sources, not RS. Then again, the album has been kept under the same. AllMusic rewrites what artists send them. gidonb (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Arguments are divided between Delete, Redirect and Keep. By the way, right now, it looks like AFD discussion on the album will close as Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect to kept album. There's a boatload of uncited assertions on this article, but no claim of notability. I disagree with User:doomsdayer520 there's enough upon which to base an article on the group. What we're missing is actual reliable sources directly detailing, and I'm not seeing anything approaching that standard so far on the page or in a reasonable BEFORE. There's nothing to keep here, no sources with which to describe the band. The album was a bare pass; based on sourcing, the album is sufficient coverage. BusterD (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not supposed to contribute to this discussion as a prior band member, but interesting to hear the process here. The album was notable to me, lol. 135.23.150.249 (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and maybe merge the album to the band article. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What about notability? gidonb (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The album should have been deleted and should still be deleted. Yet, for as long as it is kept, there is of course no problem with a redirect with prejudice against the notability of the band. This is written in response to Liz's relisting comment way back: The nominator is advocating Deletion and an editor argues for a Redirect to an article, Open Surgery (album), that is also at AFD. gidonb (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as the album article has been kept, the only viable options are "redirect/merge" or "keep". Mach61 19:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. As in there truly isn't one, not "try again in six months". Like all else tied into the events since October 7 and related to the region as a whole, opinions are split. In this case, the bulk of them have policy behind them albeit not necessarily an accurate reading thereof (sourcing does not need to be in English). There is the potential for consensus in the future, but not via another week at AfD. Star Mississippi 02:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas most wanted playing cards

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

Non notable and poorly sourced material. Seems like an excuse to make a list. Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable sources. Only a couple of the sources actually mention the cards - the vast majority of references are about the individual terrorists named and make no mention of the cards. It therefore fails WP:NOTABILITY. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely looks like significant coverage to me in those citations. Probably we should have an overall article on cards like these used in various wars. On a side note I was shocked that a deputy director in the ministry of health should be identified as a target to be killed, though I guess less than I should be consideing what has already happened there. NadVolum (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's so many examples of SIGCOV from multiple RS in multiple countries, I'm wondering if a WP:BEFORE was done. [25] [26] (Ynet, Israeli national media outlet in both English and Hebrew), [27] (Jerusalem Post, Israeli national media outlet), [28] (Al Bawaba, Jordan), [29] (Arab World Press, London/Riyadh), [30] (The Messenger, U.S.), [31] (Israel Hayom (Hebrew)), [32] (Skynews Arabia, Arabic), [33] (Al-Arabiya, Saudi), and on and on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there two different decks? Those don't all seem to be covering the same deck... From that coverage it appears that there is a government deck and that there is a "Christian cowboy" deck. This page appears to only cover the first so coverage of the second (for example that J-Post article) doesn't count towards the notability of the first. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted out the clearly irrelevant material about an alternate deck of cards but editor Longhornsg has editwarred it back in. Closer, kindly take note. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, stop with the aspersions. It's not WP:EDITWARRING. This article is about decks of cards of Hamas leaders. Alternate versions are of course relevant, as are song covers to the original, and other variations to originals. Besides, it's one source of many. Longhornsg (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is about *a deck* not about decks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article currently has information about two distinct decks of cards featuring depictions of Hamas members. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 20:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally five references in the article that aren't directly referencing the death of someone; they're the ones that need to be evaluated when deciding WP:SIGCOV, not the 19 others, referencing that someone was killed. The Messenger source is just reporting on what was in the Ynet article, so there's only four actual sources. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources have been found covering this. Dream Focus 16:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article presents 4 sources, 3 of them in Hebrew and 1 from an unreliable source, the Messenger (a site that shut down after 6 months in operation). Where is AP, Reuters, NYT, BBC etcetera, any kind of serious source? Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Messenger shut down because of business reasons, not the quality of its journalism. A plague that has unfortunately afflicted much of the journalism industry [34], [35], [36]. Additional sources are presented above and are all WP:NEWSORGS. The language of a source does not affect its status as an RS. Would it matter if many of the sources were in Arabic? Of course not. We are not limited to the AP, Reuters, NTY, and the BBC or any other sources. Let's not move the goalposts for what constitutes an RS. Longhornsg (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: So it's an "unofficial" deck, why does it need an article? Sourcing barely mentions this "deck" and most are non-RS. Newsweek and the like aren't RS. Seems to be an odd synth of various bits of information, I don't see this as being used in any media. Oaktree b (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment: Multiple independent sources about these decks. Sure, the article could use some more info (who actually made the unofficial IDF deck? could use some more sources about the 12-card deck), but WP:NOTCLEANUP. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 20:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC); Edited, Withdrew 'keep' (forgot about WP:SUSTAINED) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This reminds me of the "Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do" article that was deleted recently. Technically the playing cards have been described in news media (just as the article "Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do" was), but it's a flash in the pan, not WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The majority of the page's 19 sources cover the death of someone depicted in a card but without mentioning the cards. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an easy pass of the GNG. gidonb (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The vast majority of the sourcing here is trivial in the extreme, and the few that do cover it more meaningfully are unimpressive with a view to establishing GNG for this topic as a subject of import for a global encyclopedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the extent and scope of extant sources that cover this article's subject would be helpful in bringing this closer to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sourcing issue has been adequately resolved, and it provides value as a kind of before -after picture of the conflict. FortunateSons (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What has been resolved about sourcing? Can WP:SUSTAINED be demonstrated? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing / notability is on point. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a problem with this article's notability. There is another one with a similar name,Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards that has been on Wikipedia for several years. But maybe it is worth moving this article to "Most-wanted Hamas playing cards" to keep to the same format.--Hazooyi (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is nothing, and the weak coverage shows it. Not SIGCOV, not notable. Zanahary (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reluctant relist. I don't see a consensus here and when it comes down to a decision, I see editors whose AFD experience I respect on both sides of this discussion. A source analysis would be helpful for whomever reviews this next. Right now, there are plenty of opinions but it comes down to whether or not sources establish notability of this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, covered frequently in Hebrew like in [37]. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nothing has really changed here, we require significant and sustained coverage in English language sources and we haven't any such thing. Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, significant coverage isn't determined by language. But WP:SUSTAINED coverage in multiple reliable independent sources hasn't been demonstrated in any languages. The link that חוקרת posted is already in the article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, all else being equal, English sources are preferred merely for accessibility reasons, but not required. When push comes to shove, foreign-language sources are just as valid in counting towards reliability or notability, and cannot be disregarded on the basis of language alone. Please see WP:NONENG. Left guide (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevertheless, for this particular case, we have a total of 6 sources, 3 of which are in Hebrew (ie Israeli), 1 from the defunct Messenger, 1 from albawaba.com (Jordan) and an irrelevant one from the Jerusalem Post (Israeli) about a different deck of cards, hardly a stellar set of sources. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That only includes the sources presently in the article; I also see other sources shown in this discussion that should be given fair consideration per WP:NEXIST. Whether a particular source is in or out of the article has no bearing on the topic's notability. Left guide (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you asserting that this article is notable based on those sources? Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't reviewed them in-depth, I am simply asserting that any real discussion about the topic's notability needs to address all of the sources available, and not only the ones in the article. Left guide (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those include 3 already in the article and then 2 more Israeli source, an Arab blog established in 2023, and 2 Arabic sources in Arabic. No sight nor sound of the sort of sourcing we usually see for our articles in this topic area. The whole thing is just Israeli propaganda similar to Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards which at least had a modicum of sourcing but probably should be AfD'd as well. Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, both about this article's non-notability and about the playing cards of Iraqi officers as well. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Deublein

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

did a WP:BEFORE, could only find database entries and minor mentions. Password (talk)(contribs) 01:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film and television

  • DELETE - Non notable, and not necessarily written according to IMBD, the only source listed. He does not appear to have ever been a "star", guest or otherwise. I edited some entries under Film and television, much of which was exaggerated as to how many performances the actor did. Possibility the author Dubliner1 is the actor Dan Deublein, as this article is the only one they ever edited. — Maile (talk) 04:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Regions of Slovakia. as an ATD suggested by the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of traditional regions of Slovakia

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

This article consists entirely of a short yet confusing list with very little context. It's not clear what a "traditional region" is. It has no references. If anything, it should be merged into Regions of Slovakia. Also, while there are a lot of pages that say they link here, I think most if not all of the links are just the Slovakia infobox. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2024 (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, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm not sure by the comments here about a "mention" whether or not editors are advocating a Merge or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Follow-up: I would not want to merge this list, because it is unsourced. Geschichte (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The same can be said about just any other region. Lorstaking (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Regions of Slovakia. These traditional regions are clearly real; all four of them have full Wikipedia articles, three of them in English Wikipedia. It shouldn't be hard to pull sources from those articles or research further if sourcing is unsatisfactory. All of them and many more listed on List of tourism regions of Slovakia, so it shouldn't be hard to find official information about them from the tourism board. -- Beland (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Revert‎. I leave it up to interested editors to Watchlist this article and make sure it isn't hijacked. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024)

Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Lack of independent reliable sources. Almost every source is from either marxist.com, socialist.net, marxist.red or another website affiliated with this group. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete almost everything is a source linked to them, and those that aren't are for other groups they're linked to (notability is not inherited). I wasn't able to find anything from a WP:BEFORE to show WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources Shaws username . talk . 14:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shaws username This is likely because it's a very new change (which iirc hasn't actually even been implemented yet. I've heard this party will officially form on May 1) Genabab (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like it's a case of WP:TOOSOON, I would consider draftifying it as an atd, but given that it was renamed and old content moved I think moving/restoring the old content back so it has it's edit history makes more sense, and then a page can be created for the 2024 RCP if/when it has the coverage for notability Shaws username . talk . 19:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert as Hemmers has decribed below, what's happened has baffled me slightly. Shaws username . talk . 19:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m glad it’s not just me that’s baffled. I started off on “delete”, and then rewrote my reply twice as I dug through the edit history and became increasingly bemused! Hemmers (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very few sources not linked to the party, no demonstration of notability. AnOpenBook (talk) 15:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sort of. But revert to 17 December 2023, when it was actually a moderately well-sourced article about a long-standing publication/movement (the Socialist Appeal). Then merge the latest edit of Socialist Appeal (Britain) back on top of it and delete that article. Then move the entire stack (with edit history) back to Socialist Appeal (Britain) where it belongs. I'm at an absolute loss as to what the blazing nonsense has gone on with this article. They've moved a long-standing article, blanked it and rebranded it, and then someone's copied the old content into a new article using the old name!?! A quick hunt back through the History shows it is notable - they've just removed all the references to the former name, instead of creating a new article for the new name/body (which likely wouldn't pass NPP). Failing all that, Delete, it's just a shame to lose the edit history for Socialist Appeal (Britain), which is currently underneath this article. Hemmers (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur. My feeling is that member(s) of the party and/or its international affiliates have done what you describe above for appearances, namely to give the impression that this is a new party with a fresh face rather than simply a rebrand. It makes more sense to have just renamed the old Socialist Appeal article. The pretext for a new article is that this is a merger of two parties and thus a new organisation. This is something of a pretense since there's no real reason to think there were separate English and Scottish parties that have merged rather than just one organisation which had a Scottish and English newspaper (especially as the IMT has always opposed Scottish independence). Even if this is the merger of separate Scottish and English organisations (which is a supposition rather than a sourced claim) they were two sections of the same international organisation so it wouldn't really be a merger as much as a reorganisation. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Restore old version per Hemmers Abo Yemen✉ 13:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore previous version as per Hemmers. Suonii180 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Socialist Appeal: The separation into two articles looks to have been the work of a now banned single-purpose sockpuppet account. I think the heart of the problem here is that this article is preceding the establishment of the group itself (which isn't until May). The situation isn't helped by the frankly deliberate obfuscation by the organisations involved (which seems to be for the sole reason of hiding their numbers so you think it's more than two blokes in a shed) so we don't know if it's a merger/rebrand. Quite honestly I think there needs to be a real reconsideration of the notability of a lot of International Marxist Tendency related pages as they appear to be overwhelmingly reliant on their own webpages (of which they run several, also seemingly a deliberate attempt at obfuscation). Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per comment on the discussion page for merging the socialist appeal page with this one: Socialist Appeal was an entryist group within the Labour party, synonymous with the newspaper of the same name.
the RCP is an open political party with a noticeably different political identity. the two groups employ different methods.
The Revolutionary Communist Party will also see the merging together of the forces previously organised around the paper Revolution Scotland (revolution.scot) and the forces previously around SA. it's a different entity.
the content of the two pages is also different. one deals thoroughly with the history of the Militant split etc, whereas this one is mostly about the party's very recent history.
I think a merger of the pages will only confuse people. @Tedgrant1917 Hewer7 (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any reliable sources and the lack of independent sources there simply isn't enough to justify a separate article on the RCP. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Another AFD closed as No consensus due to low participation. My suggestion to the nominator is to try again in six months. Maybe by then we'll have more editors participating in AFD discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1910 La Laguna's 1st Philippine Assembly district special election

1910 La Laguna's 1st Philippine Assembly district special election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NEVENT. It does not satisfy any of the subsections of WP:COVERAGE, nor WP:GEOSCOPE, and is very borderline on WP:LASTING.

In addition, the citations used or otherwise available are exclusively WP:PRIMARY; this contravenes the WP:NOR policy, which prohibits “bas[ing] an entire article on primary sources". Newspaper sources published the same day of the events described are indisputably primary—see WP:RSBREAKING and WP:PRIMARYNEWS for the reasoning.

In conclusion, the article is in contravention of an editing policy and a notability guideline, so any keep votes will need to address that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as redirect but have reopened and relisted for further input following a request on my Talk
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request. I'm the creator of the article, and I've purposely declined myself from commenting. WP:AFD and Wikipedia itself seems to have ever-so declining numbers of volunteers as evidenced by this discussion. As no one cares to comment about this, and I don't think relisting this would work, if ever WP:CONSENSUS is to remove this from mainspace, I'd request for it to be draftified, then delete the link as if it shows up as a redlink. Ergo, no redirects, but the content is saved somewhere. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we have some opinions for Redirection and an editor advocating Draftification. No consensus has been reached yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 albums into the parent article Women & Songs‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women & Songs

Women & Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Women & Songs (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Women & Songs 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Women & Songs 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Women & Songs 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Women & Songs 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Women & Songs 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Women & Songs 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Women & Songs 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Women & Songs 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Women & Songs 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Women & Songs 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Women & Songs 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Women & Songs: Beginnings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Women & Songs: Beginnings Volume 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Women & Songs: 60s Girl Groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Women & Songs: The 80s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Women & Songs Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Set of almost completely unreferenced articles about a compilation album series. To be fair, they were largely created at a time when Wikipedia's approach to the notability of albums tended toward completionist directoryism -- as long as a compilation album had notable artists on it and was verifiable as existing, it was considered "inherently" notable regardless of sourcing issues. But that's long since been kiboshed, and now compilation albums are notable only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability.
These, however, are all virtually unsourced: I just now added one reference to the series overview article to get it out of the "unreferenced since 2009" bucket, while each of the individual albums is "referenced" solely to an AllMusic directory entry -- but to the extent that AllMusic helps to support notability, it doesn't hinge on the album having an AllMusic entry per se, it hinges on whether that entry contains a written review of the album by one of AllMusic's professional music critics, which absolutely none of them do. And even on a ProQuest search for at-the-time coverage, I found a couple of short CD reviews for one or two of the earliest albums, but mostly I just found glancing namechecks of their existence in coverage of individual artists who had placed songs on one of them, which doesn't help.
So I just haven't been able to find anything like enough coverage to salvage all of these -- and even if somebody else can find more coverage than I did somewhere else, it would still be far from clear that we would need 18 separate articles here instead of just one omnibus article about the series as a whole. Bearcat (talk) 01:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all to the one overarching series article. There's possibly enough to support an article on the series, but not the individual compilations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: to a "Woman and Songs" article about the collection (which does not yet exist). A bit of coverage overall [38] and a book listing [39]. Gbooks above has several scans of Billboard magazine over the years that talk about these albums. Oaktree b (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all - That "article about the collection" as hypothesized by the last voter already exists at Women & Songs, which is the first item at the top of the nominator's list. Various albums in the series got reviews that may or may not describe the series as a whole, and those can be used for content to beef up that series article. Redirect all of the individual albums to there. (Off-topic: Whoever designed those album covers should be fired.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lilian Muli

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

No credible claim of significance so imo it was an A7 but we're here anyway. The sources I find were rather sensationalist, fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST as far as I can see. Tehonk (talk) 01:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2015 attack on Dallas police

2015 attack on Dallas police (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:EVENT, only 1 death (the perpetrator) and all coverage seems to be from June 2015 so no WP:LASTING coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Death toll really doesn't mean anything for notability except it is likely there will be more coverage. Some incidents that killed 20+ people aren't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, some incidents where no one died are well referenced and comprehensive and had an effect. The context matters more, and the context of the motive and police here makes me lean keep given the sourcing
Anyway, IMO it is on the edge of NEVENT, since there is later sourcing:
As an ATD merge a small portion to the background section of the 2016 attack on the same police department the next year and redirect, since it seems like relevant context that someone else had tried and failed to do that just the year before, and several reliable sources connect them (and a lot of the same officers were involved). PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, changing vote to merge relevant content to the background section of 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. This is probably best served in the context of that, and the comparisons that several sources draw can go in the reactions section. The background section of that article is lacking anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers per PARAKANYAA. The article is a good example of WP:RECENTISM, with one of the remedies listed in that essay being a merge. While the event does not fall under the criteria of WP:NOTNEWS due to the unusual circumstances of the attack (an assault on police HQ using a "Zombie Apocalypse Assault Vehicle and Troop Transport" is not WP:MILL) and should be retained, it should not remain a standalone article. Rather than being considered as follow-up reporting, the sourcing provided above could be seen more as retrospective analysis only, especially with the death of the perpetrator and no other casualties sustained. However, the sources do seem to tie the two events together. The proposed target is a similar event with a similar name in the same city, carried out only one year later by a similarly deranged perpetrator, so bundling these together makes perfect sense. StonyBrook babble 13:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsick and Wilkin Monopoly Breakers

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

Completely minor and irrelevant parties that never won a seat, got more than 100 votes, or participated in more than 1 election. Yilku1 (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

People's Political Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Progressive Liberal Party (Saint Kitts and Nevis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saint Kitts Democratic Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
United National Empowerment Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
United People's Party (Saint Kitts and Nevis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Yilku1 (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to the Kelsick and Wilkin Monopoly Breakers, Progressive Liberal Party, United National Empowerment Party or United People's Party articles being deleted as they were very minor, but the People's Political Movement and Saint Kitts Democratic Party were clearly significant parties at the time of the elections in question. Number 57 08:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural Keep per Number 57. These deserve individual source searches. SportingFlyer T·C 16:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:G5ed because it's been created by a LTA Liamb2011 (talk · contribs)‎. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Wiley Cash Sr.

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

The only claim to notability is that his son is famous Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and North Carolina. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well, the two obituaries are all I can find. Being a pharmacist alone and the father of a famous person doesn't get you a wikipedia article. Not meeting any sort of notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, the son doesn't look that notable either, he had a number one album on Apple music charts, which doesn't get him at notability requirements here either. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 00:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edenspiekermann

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable organization, sourcing does not appear to exist. Article creator was a WP:SPA – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: - what about the "further reading" section - some of those refs are paper. Are they not valid? --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just based on their titles, as I have not read them, they don't look to be coverage of the company, but rather relevant to the industry. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking them up on Google Books they just appear to be about graphic design or logo design in general, also the first one is an autobiography of the founder of the company. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources are nothing but press releases. Fails WP:NCORP. GTrang (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_February_29&oldid=1211010634"