Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 03	October 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Peace Studies (Croatia)

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

There is nothing to indicate that this is a notable organization. Thenightaway (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Croatia. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This organization is generally known in the Croatian mainstream press, e.g. in the Google searches for site:hr "centar za mirovne studije" there's thousands of results from Jutarnji list, Večernji list, Croatian Radiotelevision, Nova TV (Croatia), RTL (Croatian TV channel), Index.hr etc. I didn't investigate significant coverage, but the big picture seems pretty clear. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Failed to find any reliable and Independent source on Google. Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 11:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing significant/noteworthy about it. Haueirlan (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kathmandu International Study Centre

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

It's a G11 and probably honestly a G12, but I can't find the actual source. I could stub it, but then there's nothing left so bringing it here for discussion. ALso because the article has a long history and schools + PROD don't mix. This ~ 35 year old school has no coverage to indicate notability. There a listings, such as guides to international schools, but zero in depth coverage. As this is an international school, the lack of ability to search in the Nepalese script should not be a huge issue as there would be some coverage in international press. Star Mississippi 18:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. Star Mississippi 18:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi, some of the sources (of copyvio) are in the article, such as [1]. I wouldn't speedy though. It's an extremely old article, and its first revision[2] is neither a G12 nor a clear G11. I can see why this article survived for so long though. Up until around 2 years ago, maybe even 1.5 years ago, it would have been kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I think it was a G12 beyond the link in your first sentence was the "our" in This high standard of education we now want to pass on to others through our Education Quality Improvement Programmes (EQUIP) for KISC teachers and Nepali schools (emphasis mine). It's copy/pasted from somewhere, likely a 2010 version of the school's website. And yes, you're absolutely right. There's still some dissension on schools, which is why I generally think they need more than PROD. Thanks! Star Mississippi 02:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- I could not find anything online. Since we are no longer presuming notability based on proof of existence, it's a delete. It is clear that people close to the school have edited it over the years. But the article still only contains primary sources. Most of it is promotional and copyvio. So, WP:TNT is reasonable either way. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have removed copyvios and possible copyvios. It is still in the history, for now, if someone wants to check the sources. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom & above. DIVINE (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Nematiyan

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE, only one of the sources had in-depth coverage the rest are short or just passing mentions. Many of the links to cited sources return a 404 error. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Iran, and Karnataka. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough sources to show a Wikipedia article is needed. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex power

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

This article has no citation and all the reference links are pointing to archive web. Has no significant contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The South Star Hill (talk • contribs) 09:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG, per the coverage in independent, secondary sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ Jim Giles (9 April 2008). "Harnessing river whirlpools puts energy on tap". New Scientist. Retrieved 4 October 2022.
^ Lee Williams (10 October 2016). "Hydroelectric generators tap the backwaters for energy". The IET. Retrieved 4 October 2022.
^ Tim Stevens (3 December 2008). "VIVACE generates big power from small currents". Engadget. Retrieved 4 October 2022.
^ Edwin Cartlidge (28 November 2008). "Renewable energy source inspired by fish". Physics World. Retrieved 4 October 2022.
^ Beth LeBlanc (18 January 2015). "Company studies making power from water". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved 4 October 2022.

SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur that SailingInABathTub's sources provide significant coverage of the subject (and, for the record, This article has no citation [sic] and Has no significant contribution [sic] were never true). Article is somewhat of a mess but needs to be rewritten, not deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Engineering, Environment, and Technology. Skynxnex (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs improvement certainly, but all of the issues with the article are easily surmountable problems. The article's subject appears notable and meets WP:GNG by way of the sources that were already in the article, and though all but one are in the external links section, they are all still valid sources. I don't know what all the reference links are pointing to archive web means, but if that means that all the links are dead and the only way to view them is through archived links, then that's not accurate but also that's not a reason to delete an article; sources accessible through something like archive.org are just as valid as a live source in terms of verifying information. So just the sources in the article already show notability, when you add SailingInABathTub's sources above to the mix it's an easy yes as far as notability. - Aoidh (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summer '22 Tour

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

The only source that actually discusses the tour is hip-hopvibe.com, which does not appear to be accepted as a RS anywhere on wp. The rest of the links are about the respective concerts festivals she performed at, listing her as an artist with no other sigcov. Fails GNG. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as like nom, I am not seeing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV and the first ref, while seemingly being closer than the rest, is not close to be sufficient. No evidence this passes WP:NTOUR and due to the potential ambiguity of the tour name, I wouldn't want to suggest a redirect either. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to BHG Financial. Although it's not mentioned by the participants, I decided to go with the nominator's suggestion that some of this article's content could be merged into the company he founded which does demonstrate notability as defined by Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Castro

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

This article does not demonstrate how the individual is notable per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Nearly all of the sources given are run-of-the-mill announcements about corporate goings-on, press releases, or "sponsored post" / "partner content" (basically written by the subject or their marketing department). Perhaps the company BHG Financial is notable enough for an article, so biographical information about the individual founders could go into that article. ... discospinster _talk 18:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United States of America, and New York. ... discospinster _talk 18:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been adjusted accordingly, with gratitude. To all Wikipedia Wikipedians Jimmy Wales @JimmyWales @LarrySanger, et al, with respect my witnessing of the recent "judgements" entered over 1. Questions over the relevancy of a page and 2. the outright removal of evidence-supported material to a political page (proof of the editor presenting their intent as being anything but "Neutral), one cannot deny the rightful documentation of a person's LIFE WORKS for we are all here on earth for a purpose. To deny the documentation of one's LIFE WORKS, in my humble opinion, is nothing more than "whitewashing", for the record. FACT IS FACT . TRUTH IS TRUTH. History is the collective documentation of FACTUAL TRUTHS. As a conscious human being, a journalist who views the role of documentation as being a great responsibility, I stand firmly behind this logical notion of inarguable reason, respectfully. MadamXMedia111 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibit 1: [1]Robert Castro,[2] also known as Bobby Castro (born March 1, 1967), is a Latino-American entrepreneur.[3] He is best known for serving as an original co-founder of Bankers Healthcare Group, a financial services company headquartered in the town of Davie, Florida in Broward County, South Florida .[4][5]

Contents

1 Early life

2 BHG Financial

3 Accolades

4 References

Early life

Bobby Castro was born in the Bronx, New York to parents Luis and Kathleen Castro. The Castro family, which includes Bobby Castro's brother and fellow co-founding figure behind BHG Financial Eric Castro, migrated to the Hyleah section of Miami, Florida while he was a young child. He dropped out of high school shortly after entering the ninth grade.[6][7]

BHG Financial

In 2001, while attending a financial conference, Bobby and Eric Castro met Al Crawford and joined forces over the company formation of Bankers Healthcare Group (BHG). "We have become experts," Albert Crawford noted to Syracuse, New York media outlet, with respect to the financial services capacity of the BHG company.[8]

On February 4, 2015, it was announced that a major BHG company merger and acquisition with Pinnacle Financial Partners was finalized.[9] Details of the deal revealed Nashville-based Pinnacle paid $75 million in cash and debt for its 30-percent stake in Bankers Healthcare Group (BHG).[10]

Accolades

On June 14, 2012, during a celebratory gala that took place at the Hilton Orlando in commemoration of the annual Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Awards ceremony,[11] Bobby Castro, Eric Castro and Al Crawford[12] received special recognition over the company's financial services and named Ernst & Young's Florida Entrepreneur Of The Year.[13][14]

References

Bakian, Amir. "How Bobby Castro Overcame a Lifetime of Challenges to Reach the Top". The Village Voice.

Linhorst, Stan (June 21, 2012). "Al Crawford on leadership: Build a cohesive team, create clarity, communicate it clearly". Syracuse.

"How the Founder of "Bankers Healthcare Group" Grew a $25,000 Investment into $300 Million". Yahoo Sports. April 16, 2020.

Beeler, Charles (February 6, 2019). "Bankers Healthcare Group Original Founding Partner Named a South Florida Power Leader". Bankers Healthcare Group.

"Bankers Healthcare Group Settles in at its New Corporate Headquarters in South Florida". Bankers Healthcare Group. December 2, 2015.

"Bobby Castro Net Worth". Millyuns.

"An inside look into Bobby Castro's success journey". The Dallas Morning News. December 20, 2021.

Linhorst, Stan (June 21, 2016). "Al Crawford on leadership: Build a cohesive team, create clarity, communicate it clearly". Syracuse.

De Lombaerde, Geert (February 4, 2015). "Pinnacle pays $75M for stake in health care lender". Nashville Post.

Lincoff, Nina (February 19, 2012). "Majority interest of Davie healthcare group acquired by Nashville company for $75M". The South Florida Business Journal.

"Ernst & Young Announces Award Recipients for the Entrepreneur Of The Year® 2012 Florida Award". Business Wire. June 15, 2012.

"2012 Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year". Bankers Healthcare Group. June 19, 2012.

"Ernst & Young Announces the Independent Judging Panel for Florida Entrepreneur Of The Year® Awards 2012". Bloomberg News. March 21, 2012.

"Bankers Healthcare Group Owners Named Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year Award Recipients in Florida". Bankers Healthcare Group. June 19, 2012.

Exhibit 2: The 2022 Toronto Mayoral race is a electoral event of the collective Toronto Municipal Election 2022, a Canadian democratic voting process engaged under The Electoral System of Canada,[1] within the Canadian Province of Ontario, specific to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.[2] The political event is set for Monday, October 24, 2022.[3] News reports estimate more than 1.89 million eligible voters in Toronto are expected to cast their ballots to elect one mayor, 25 councillors and 39 Toronto District school board trustees across four Toronto school boards.[4][5]

A total of 30 candidates have been certified by the Toronto’s city clerk to run against Tory in his campaign for another four years at the head of council, noted Issac Callan, a political analyst for Global News.[6] Should Tory be re-elected to continue his service as Mayor of Toronto in the 2022 Municipal Elections of Toronto, he would become the city's the longest-serving Mayor in service since 2014.[7][8] On another note, if the people of Toronto win the bid for Tory-opponent Reginald Tull to be elected Mayor, Reginald Tull will be the first Black Mayor of Toronto, acting in a full time capacity.[9]

On May 2nd, 2022, Reginald Tull was officially nominated candidate for Mayor in service to the people of the City of Toronto.[10] A familiar Black community leader of Toronto, including the city's crime-ridden Regent Park[11] Toronto housing project,[12] Reginald Tull is a native Torontonian, recognized as a noted "Street Preacher"[13] advocating for the disadvantaged and marginalized people of Toronto. He is author of "Memoirs of a Bad Boy: A true story of a young man's struggles, incarceration, and redemption (https://books.google.ca/books/about/

For the record, there are 30 candidates ... I, ~~~ Madam X Media111, legally known as Michele Fralick, have the full, clear and present intent to rightfully list the names of all candidates as it is a historical fact and the article "The 2022 Toronto Mayoral Election" page would not be complete without rightfully doing so, period. However, this is a process that take time to gather and generate all knowledge and citations. So the page as it stands as of this 5th day of October, 2022, is much like that of a page representing a Living Person ... a work in progress ... That stated, to completely remove factual documentation that was input for the record with carefully application, care and extensive research , is not only disrespectful, is reflects malicious intent through an action which has taken the page back to being one-sided and further pulling it back to entirely failing to complete whole picture of the 2022 Toronto Mayoral Election.

----------------------------------------

This is an essential platform. It is a highly respected platform. It is an honor and privilege to serve the role of contributor to this platform. I motion that we as contributor reconsider nit-picking over irrelevant questioning (ie whether or not the factual works of one Robert Castro should or should not be documented: a real person whose life works (substantial life works, matter), that energy would be better spent on the recent, obvious biased editorial action 2022 Toronto Mayoral Election, a page which should rightfully reflect a democratic electorial process involving 30 Mayoral candidates, one of whom will hopefully be voted in in a fair, just, democratic manner ... for the purpose of serving the people of Toronto ... a city that is failing to address a homeless epidemic (I, personally, can speak to that being one who was homeless for nearly five months during the year 2021 in Toronto, my birthplace), a city that is ridden with gun violence, a city that lacks affordable housing, a city that lacks affordable groceriers to support a vegan diet (I personally can attest to that) ... alll of these are NOT ONLY ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS ... CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS & FREEDOMS ,, THEY ARE UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS ... perhaps we should consider the weight of importance of our duty to document that which is fact, that which are LIFE MATTERS, that which is truth ... and be sure to include the WHOLE. I rest my case MadamXMedia111 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the above rant. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a platform for promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ignoring the complaint above, this person fails WP:GNG. Most of the article is sourced to obvious press releases or articles that don't actually mention the subject. While at first glance there are some more reliable sources cited, these articles are marked as sponsored content, and are therefore not independent. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. We lack sufficient independent refrences to meet notability.4meter4 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- press releasing, fails General notability guideline. Yüsiacı (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to create a redirect from this title to point to an appropriate target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DWPJ

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

No independent sources that cover this topic in depth found. No cited sources whatsoever. (t · c) buidhe 18:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and Philippines. (t · c) buidhe 18:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ping @MPGuy2824: who already interacted with this article. (t · c) buidhe 18:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ "This radio station is not licensed by National Telecommunications Commission. It was played by the YouTube." Not a licensed broadcast station and just someone's YouTube channel...which I can't find because I assume it got copyright struck (and I'm always amused by YouTube radio stations which somehow are restricted to one city only). And I can assume the constant frequency jumps are all failed pirate attempts. Nate • (chatter) 20:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A source has been added to the article with the actual NTC FM list which does confirm the existence of a DWPJ...in Baao. On 88.5 FM. As a Radyo Natin Network station. So everything in this article is fake, but the station exists, thus...

Delete false history and redirect to List of Manila Broadcasting Company stations#Radyo Natin, the actual holder of the license and broadcaster. An additional ping to @Sammi Brie: to confirm my findings as correct. Nate • (chatter) 21:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have my NTC list in front of me right now, but that's the only viable ATD. By the way, Mrschimpf, you can't fix a broken ping without signing your edit again. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BCAST. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I draftified this for lack of sources. The only sources that have been added are lists of radio stations. Unless someone can find good local sources, deletion is the only way to go. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage found. It does not meet the notability criteria. Fifthapril (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G3: Definitely a WP:HOAX. Per NTC listing, the frequency belongs to a now-defunct station in Sorsogon City, while the call letters belong to a Radyo Natin station in Baao. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article was moved to DWSC-FM to evade AfD scrutiny; it has been returned to the original title, thus delete of DWSC-FM in addition to my previous rationale for this article. Nate • (chatter) 19:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:G3/WP:HOAX per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G3 as WP:HOAX. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Philadelphia Eagles–Washington Redskins game

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

Significant routine coverage exists, as it would for any NFL game, but this individual game is not notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and American football. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom, routine coverage about another game, albeit high-scoring. Add to that it's not the only game to be called the "Monday Night Massacre", and no long-lasting coverage of the game, fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ROUTINE. 59 points is a lot but not a record. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run-of-the-mill blowout game. These happen several times every year and there is no WP:SIGCOV that would make this particular game more notable than others. Frank Anchor 18:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this game. We don't need individual articles for every single NFL outing. Ajf773 (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would big the differ on this one, this particular game is still widely talked about in NFL circles due to Michael Vick's six total touchdowns and Washington's poor performance. 59 set a Monday Night Football record for most points scored in a single game by one team, a record that still stands today. Just something for your consideration. Jimania16 (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the 6 touchdown point, if you check out this link, you'll see that 8 players have passed for more touchdowns in a single game. This makes Vick's performance tied for the 9th most passing touchdowns in a game, tied with 39 other games in which players have passed for 6 touchdowns.

As for 59 points, this would only be a record for a Monday night game, of which there are obviously much fewer. There have 20 games in which a team has scored more than 59 points based on this link.

Based on the scorigami website, which is not a perfect source, there have been 27 games in which a team has scored 59 or more points while the opposing team has scored 21 or fewer points, making them larger blowouts with worse defensive performances than mentioned.

I say this only to reflect the data and why I don't see this game as notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well I was able to find this article in 2019 about the game from USA Today and this from The Athletic in 2020, but that's about it besides coverage from when the game happened. There's also about a page on it in The Eagles Encyclopedia: Champions Edition. Not looking like a GNG pass to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you search "Monday Night Massacre" on Google search engine, the top results include Eagles vs. Redskins - Game Summary - November 15, 2010 (ESPN) as well as numerous highlight videos from the game, including the one I attached as an external link on the article. There are numerous references made to the "Monday Night Massacre" for this game by various media sources. If the name were changed to 'Monday Night Massacre (football)', would that change its terms for deletion? I particularly don't appreciate the delay in nominating this page for deletion after I created it months ago and it is just now being reviewed.--Vataxevader (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the name were changed to 'Monday Night Massacre (football)', would that change its terms for deletion?

That title would also be appropriate for the 2005 game with the same name at History of Monday Night Football#"Monday Night Massacre" (Seahawks). As I mentioned in a reply above, when you discount the day there's nothing about this game that stands out, so no, a name change would not change my mind. I can't say the same for others. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool then delete it idgaf Vataxevader (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I could find no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage from a search, the only things that show up are a bunch of highlight videos, which are primary sources and do not contribute to notability, and a couple game summaries from the time, which are simply routine coverage of the type that occurs to practically every professional sporting match. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to New England Collegiate Baseball League#Past champions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of NECBL seasons

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

WP:GNG. Merge content into New England Collegiate Baseball League. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Baseball. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New England Collegiate Baseball League#Past champions. This sort of thing is what navboxes are for. Hog Farm _Talk 20:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge as per above. The navbox template is all that is needed, not a dedicated list article. Ajf773 (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New England Collegiate Baseball League#Past champions, doesn't need to be a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Boxing at the 1920 Summer Olympics – Flyweight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Androt

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

Seemingly non-notable Belgian boxer. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NOLYMPICS. Competed at the 1920 Olympics but didn't make it past the round of 16, per Belgium at the 1920 Summer Olympics. An extensive Google search result and Google Scholar search produced no results outside of wiki mirrors. If anybody else finds time, I believe a lot of athlete articles linked to Belgium at the 1920 Summer Olympics need a notability check. Pilaz (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Belgium. Pilaz (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - used to meet NOLYMPICS, prior to its recent revision. Now no longer does. Fails GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boxing at the 1920 Summer Olympics – Flyweight per WP:ATD.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boxing at the 1920 Summer Olympics – Flyweight per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. gidonb (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boxing at the 1920 Summer Olympics – Flyweight. Don't see the WP notability or coverage for a standalone article, but support a redirect to an article where he's already mentioned. 23:43, 9 October 2022 (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 redirect to Kid Capri#Discography. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Love (album)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Did a WP:Before and I found nothing meaningful. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kid_Capri#Discography. Found some coverage, mostly interviews though some other things as well, but not enough to quite convince me this is saveable. QuietHere (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kid_Capri#Discography. Fifthapril (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kid Capri#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Blanc

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

Non-notable ski mountaineer. Did a before search, and couldn't come up with sources to establish notability. With no medal record, doesn't meet WP:GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 16:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There appears to be a manufacturer of sunglasses of this name, but not connected to this lady, who appears to signally fail WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sports, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dino De Laurentiis#Film production. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dino de Laurentiis Cinematografica

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

Delete There is only a single source for Dino de Laurentiis Cinematografica. I don't think that the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) is a reliable source. It has produced nearly 100 films, but it doesn't list the films. There seems to be indications of notability. Fails WP:NCORP and GNG. Heather Leviara (aka Green 34) 13:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dino De Laurentiis#Film production. It/he did produce a significant number of high-profile movies, e.g. Nights of Cabiria, Barbarella, Barabbas, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Stefanou

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

Non notable bit part actor. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While he has appeared in some notable Australian shows, the subject's roles appear to be fairly minor; even his recurring roles are short-lived. I can't find anything that would establish WP:GNG, either. Dflaw4 (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: bit part actor, lack of RS and fails WP:NACTOR. Elbatli (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Davies baronets

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

Source is a passing mention, could not find anything but passing mentions in two books, not notable by WP:GNG. VTVL (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and England. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Seems like most of the articles in Category:Extinct baronetcies in the Baronetage of England would fall under this criteria as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article itself states that nothing is known of the sole recipient of this peerage except that he had no descendants, which is supported by a search that found absolutely nothing outside of Wikipedia mirrors. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mirto (brand)

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, the only coverage available in the article and from a search consisted of primary sources, directory listings and promotional blurbs. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree totally with nom: WP:GNG and WP:NCORP are barely troubled by this. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Society (1968 film)

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

Article fails WP:NFILM and does not have any references. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Japanese movie referenced on Japanes movie sites such as https://eiga.com/movie/70580/

It is also available on Amazon Prime Video service in Japan. Johan Burati (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Johan Burati, thanks for the information but could you tell me how this film passes WP:NFILM? If I've made a mistake or missed something I'm more than willing to withdraw the nomination. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My WP:BEFORE found no more refs that could meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, article creator's comment is inaccurate- how does database listings and services lend to notability? VickKiang (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the GNG criteria or NFILM. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congress Chhodo Yatra

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

Fails WP:GNG ( There is no such Yatra officially. The user who created the page is a supporter of the ruling party [3] which is like an attack on the opposition. Any page on Wikipedia must be in accordance with Wikipedia's policy and fairness. ) PravinGanechari (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. PravinGanechari (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't support any party. If you want so I can change my mood and delete it. Contributor008 (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not a strong deletion rationale as nearly every entry on this list is sourced. There is some argument that Jews in Sports is an overused source and more reliable sources should be sought out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish footballers

AfDs for this article:

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

Redundant article and lacks many reliable sources. We have a category of Jewish footballers and this article list of Jews in sports can compensate. In addition, there is a disagreement about who is a Jew. Sakiv (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per clear consensus at the last AFD, nothing has changed - topic is clearly notable and is a valid content fork of the [list of Jews in sports]] article. Giant Snowman 08:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see a fully sourced list of footballers with at least one source per player. This sounds more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT-argument. The Banner talk 12:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the issue is shaky inclusion criteria, that can be hashed out on the talk page. It's a list that has been talked about as a group, which fulfills WP:LISTN and averts any WP:NECC issues. TartarTorte 18:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 18:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pretty straight forward article, I am concerned about the over use of Jews in Sports website being used as a source. (WP:RS?) That doesn't look like a great website to use. This also feels like why? Why are we doing a Jews in Football list, this feels WP:OR to me. The list really does lack an explanation for the validity for such a list. Govvy (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darenzia

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

Don't believe she reaches WP:NMODEL or the GNG. Most of the sources in the article and I saw on Google News and Books do not reach the level of significant coverage in RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Arts, Fashion, Photography, and Sexuality and gender. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One hit about her being on Ink Master in GNews. Sourcing in the wiki article here is only passing mentions and she appears to have gone silent in the last decade or so, most sourcing is from before 2010. Even her imdb page is only 2 small roles a decade ago. Barely at GNG then, even less now. Oaktree b (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC; a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Electro Tone Corporation

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

May fail GNG. All sources seem to be primary sources or original research, and a google news search for the company shows no results when the company's name is put in quote marks. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Commend the nominator's tentativeness, as this was indeed a challenging one to research. Without a doubt, there are no reliable secondary sources cited within the article, and the article would fail WP:GNG on that basis. The challenging part is trying to prove that there is no SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources, because "Electro Tone" (as opposed to "Electro Tone Corporation") actually does generate a lot of hits across Google, Wikipedia Library, Newspapers.com, and the Internet Archive. As it turns out, "electro tone" / "electro-tone" / "electrotone" was a term used to describe the Hammond organs themselves, several decades before this particular company "Electro Tone Corporation" was set up to manufacture aftermarket add-ons to Hammond organs. Although there were a lot of newspaper advertisements by "Electro Tone Corporation" in the past, as well as continued interest in old Electro Tone components within the Hammond organ user community (e.g. in online forums), there just doesn't appear to be any reliable secondary coverage about the company itself or its products. But the good news for the Hammond organ user/fan base is that there is more information about Electro Tone Corporation's products available on other non-Wikimedia wikis, like this one. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G5 (User:Ijumdiya wadzani) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bayanni

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

Bayanni is a new artist. The fact he got signed to Mavins record doesn’t make him suitable to have a Wikipedia page. Also most of his references possibly likely to be paid news to boost up his public presence. I do also feel the article creators is having a COI of subject article he or she creates due to the contribution pattern. Gabriel (talk to me ) 05:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Bands and musicians. Gabriel (talk to me ) 05:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the sourcing appears to be PR fluff. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Given that Wiktionary already has an entry on this, it appears that we don't need to transwiki, but it can still be done if requested by someone from Wiktionary. Legoktm (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After-sales

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

This seems like an obvious candidate to be moved to Wiktionary since it seems to consist of little more than a dictionary definition. Am I missing something? Laun chba ller 04:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warranty. Seems to me that this is just industry lingo for specific product warranties and anything unique to the concept of "After-sales" can probably be covered there. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 09:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Management, and Products. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 09:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clienteling. Based on my BEFORE, this article seems to be a better target. After-sales refers not just to warranties but any contact a seller makes with a purchaser following the sale such as thank you notes or extending them special offers for additional products. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki Wikipedia is not a dictionary and if it could be ambiguous (WP:XY), it's not appropriate to redirect. (t · c) buidhe 22:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as more suitable for Wiktionary. Haueirlan (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, since there doesn't really seem to be a good redirect target I would oppose a redirect per WP:XY. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikitionary already has the entries wikt:aftersales and wikt:aftersale. Suggest delete and a {{Wiktionary redirect}} to wikt:aftersales. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fun in Balloon Land

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

This is a non-notable film. Almost all of the current refs are trivial, this is RS but a trivial plot guide, whereas this book also covers this in one paragraph, and is non-SIGCOV with an iffy publisher. Other refs are either databases or obviously non-RS blogs. Therefore, this fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, and should be deleted. VickKiang 04:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Spinegrinder book is the closest I could find to an actual review, and it is still pretty short. The remainder of the sources included in the article (that aren't just from unmistakably non-reliable sources) are just very brief amounts of coverage or mentions, largely in relation to it having been on Rifftrax. I was unable to find any actual significant coverage upon searches, though if anyone manages to dig up any old contemporary reviews from newspapers at the time, please ping me to reassess my recommendation. Rorshacma (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to DWAV#1989–2001: 89 DMZ. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DZMZ

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

Station fails WP:BCAST. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no sourcing for this station that's been defunct for over 20 yrs now. Article is largely unsourced as well. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DWAV#1989–2001: 89 DMZ: The call letters were used by the station prior to 2001. The details of the former station known as 89 DMZ can be covered in the target article. As for the internet station iDMZ, I doubt that it's notable on its own. It can be covered there as well. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DWAV#1989–2001: 89 DMZ, which formerly used the callsign per Astig's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sashi (film). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rashi Singh

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Perhaps, WP:TOOSOON. — Tulsi 24x7 04:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Entertainment, and India. — Tulsi 24x7 04:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Your not kidding me. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Mickey-mouse promo article. scope_creep^Talk 08:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see anything from Google. I can only see her social media handles. 100% fail GNG.Ashavawani (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to Sashi (film), her only significant role. Fails notability criteria.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR as she acted in only one notable film. Contributor008 (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I agree that this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, as the subject has only had two acting roles so far. That being said, the sources in the article would seem to suggest that WP:GNG is made out on the strength of being an up-and-coming actress. A redirect, as suggested above, is certainly better than a straight-out delete at this point. It might be worth re-assessing whether she merits her own article once her upcoming films are released. Dflaw4 (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Sashi (film) which is her only significant role. Elbatli (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This article was nominated for AFD an hour after it had been created in main space and a lot of work has been done on the article during the course of this discussion. Those editors who are assessing its current state believe that problems brought up in the nomination statement have been addressed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louth Intermediate Football Championship

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

Louth Intermediate Football Championship

This stub has no references and no lede section, and does not make a credible claim of significance. A less incomplete article on this topic, which nonetheless was not ready for article space because it had no references, has already been moved to draft space as Draft:Louth Intermediate Football Championship. This stub should be deleted as failing both verifiability and notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Ireland. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with nom, nothing to be found. ww2censor (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd draftified an earlier version of this and agree that there aren't really sources for this local second-tier cup. eviolite (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sources and references added Moresthepity (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, draftify or redirect (to Louth_GAA#Football). While, when nominated, the nominator's comments (about lack of refs, content or much of anything at all) were true, that is no longer the case. While most of the references and content added since seem to cover individual games in this competition, rather than the competition/history/etc as a whole, the same could likely be said of other intermediate county-level football competitions. Of which we have many. While I appreciate that this is, in effect, an OSE argument, OSE and convention/consensus are a "double edged" sword. Personally I think outright deletion isn't the best course, and that there are alternatives to deletion available that would reflect the content/sources. Guliolopez (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is quite borderline, but I reckon this is a notable competition. There's clearly a lot of coverage of this event, especially the final, in sources such as Hogan Stand, which appears to be a reliable sports magazine, and the Drogheda Independent. While Drogheda itself is not very large, the Independent presumably serves as a regional newspaper for County Louth itself, which has a population of over 100,000 people, meaning it's probably a reliable source. As such, I reckon this competition passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:HEY. Thanks to the efforts of Guliolopez, many independent sources have been added to the article since its nomination. While all of these sources are mainly coverage of individual games, they do show sustained coverage over two decades which indicates a degree of notability. While it would be preferable to have a source or two with a wider long-term view of the competition as a whole to prove WP:SIGCOV; the preponderance of sources here do push this over towards the keep side.4meter4 (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with an option to split in the near future. There is neither consensus to delete nor consensus to keep at this time. There is a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS to merge. I'll highlight one comment in particular that I felt articulated the merge position most clearly and succinctly.

When arguing to merge for now, IP editor 98.155.8.5 explained how originally the George Floyd standalone page wasn't deemed notable, either, outside of his death and the nation-wide protests that followed. As they further explained, now of course, there are multiple pages about him, including the aforementioned bio bearing his name. The point, though, is that it didn't happen right away (refer to the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Floyd). Personally, I'd predict with near-certainty that the same will be true for Mahsa Amini, just not quite yet. El_C 03:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahsa Amini

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

The subject was not notable prior to her death. The article Death of Mahsa Amini is more than adequate to report all details of her life and death. WWGB (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Iran. WWGB (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the context of her death, what is notable about Mahsa Amini is her ordinaryness. This is notable. She is an "everywoman," and a proxy for all female persons in Tehran, if not in Iran as a whole. Her Kurdish background stands out, but in all other regards she blends in. She died despite the fact that she was not any of the things that might have marked her for violent mistreatment. She was not a demonstrator or an agitator, a public intellectual, a Christian, Jew or Zoroastrian. She was not yet highly educated, though she desired more education. She was shy, it is said. The fact that she was so ordinary, but paid the ultimate penalty for the slightest offense makes her a very important person, and a symbol, as her tombstone attests. She stands as proof that the guidance patrol and morality police have nothing to do with giving guidance or encouraging morality. By this incident they are shown to be instruments of state terror, nothing more. Her treatment, in fact, was grossly immoral, so much so that it can be seen in this case that the blame cannot be confined to a handful of misguided officers. The fault is systemic, and blame must adhere to those in command of the wretched system of oppression that killed her, and that threatens every Iranian woman. The addition of more information about her innocuousness, her harmlessness and her averageness would be welcome in that it would better inform the thinking of everyone searching for the meaning of her death.Thomas B. Higgins Thomasbhiggins (talk 18:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The current protests in Iran have no longer anything with Miss Amini or women's rights. The day before yesterday, university students chanted "neither here nor there; my dick in the supreme leader's office". The language is obviously sexist and I believe an end to "history in the making". 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please.. We must be neural about the articles. Caravaneternity (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Death of Mahsa Amini, where a biography section already exists. There is well-developed article about the notable WP:EVENT that could be further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article is just about Mahsa Amini and her life not about any other thing. Mahsa Amini is well-known for all people not only in iran but in other countries.Caravaneternity (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC) — Caravaneternity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- No, the article is primarily about her death and the ensuing protests, both of which are the subject of existing articles. WWGB (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @WWGB I don't agree with you, she is notable and all people around the world know her and I think you are trying to ignore this fact. there are thousands of sources about Mahsa Amini you can find by Google. We must be neutral about articles in wikipedia. We must not try to delete articles which do not agree with our political or religious orientation. Caravaneternity (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I do not have any relevant "political or religious orientation". I am an Australian atheist. I couldn't care less about the politics of Iran. My sole concern here is with an article that duplicates an existing article, per WP:OVERLAP. WWGB (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really sorry but your contributions say something else.. anyway it's not important .. that's not my point. Caravaneternity (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at my global contributions [4], I created my account in Wiki on Jan 2022 and done many edits in other Wikipedias like Persian and Kurdish Wiki. Caravaneternity (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems almost entirely redundant to the article on her death. No clear case for notability as a standalone biography. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources for that. Article Death of Mahsa Amini is different from this article. It is common on Wikipedia to make separate articles to prevent articles from oversizing for significant portions. This article is about mahsa amini's biography.I believe that in accordance with Wikipedia's laws, it is absolutely right that there is a separate article for Mahsa Amini's biography. also She is the main symbol of Iran's 2022 protests and a part of Iran's history. for that just look how International Media, Politicians, Celebrities and The general public of the world speak about her: BBC, The Guardian, DW News, The New York Times and lots of other great medias.H2KL (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC) — H2KL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: The user's contributions show that since doing their first edit on 18 September 2022, H2KL has been solely editing the pages related to Mahsa Amini. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They all talk about her death. She wasn't famous before, she doesn't get famous until the events of her death. Oaktree b (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not done any thing wrong. please stop accusing users for unreasonable things just in order to achieve your personal goals... H2KL (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge She is well known, but it is all a 1E single event. She didn't have standalone notability before that event. Merge to Death of Mahsa Amini where the summary article is. The core of the article is already duplicated with the majority of the details on the main articles, with a better picture, with only transitory details left in this article. The summary article even has better image. There is form for this. scope_creep^Talk 09:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Outside of her death, her life was rather routine. Had she not died, shouldn't be notable. Even this article tells more about her death and reaction to it than to the rest of her life. Duplication that isn't needed. Very much 1E. Oaktree b (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her "life section" in this article is barely a paragraph. More about her death and reaction to it, again which is already explained in another article. She doesn't get two articles that basically tell the same thing, that's not what wikipedia is for. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added new content to the biography. This article is in the early stages of creation and needs to be completed, which users will complete over time. DavidR2021 (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article on Mahsa Amini protests was separated from the article on Death of Mahsa Amini so as not to be too big. So, separating the biography like this article is also quite logical, it just needs to be completed because it is in the early stages of creation. It will be completed by users. i added some new information to the biography.DavidR2021 (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC) — DavidR2021 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. *:before any judgment look at my global contributions [5], I have been active since 2021. DavidR2021 (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of biographical information currently available does not appear to justify a separate article per WP:WHENSPLIT. If her biography becomes too large for the Death of Mahsa Amini article, then the article may be split into a separate article. This article currently appears to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK and should be merged into the main article about the notable event of her death - this is still a recent event and it seems better for article development and WP:NPOV to focus on one main article for now. Beccaynr (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added new texts with the related sources. I believe it is better to be kept. her biography will be expanded here very soon it is better to remain separated like Hadis Najafi. DavidR2021 (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the pending Hadis Najafi AfD discussion, I suggest renaming the article to Death of Hadis Najafi because of WP:BLP1E policy and the WP:EVENT guideline, and I think similar reasoning applies to why it is currently better to selectively merge biographical content from the Mahsa Amini(Jina) article into the Death of Mahsa Amini article, although there are additional considerations here, because there are already two articles related to Mahsa Amini, in addition to this article, which was created [6] after an attempt to rename the Death of Mahsa Amini article [7] was reverted [8] and the article then protected [9] by Tamzin. Beccaynr (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr Sorry but Nika Shakarami and Hadis Najafi and lot of other people protested and sacrificed their lives for Mahsa Amini. Now we see in wikipedia they have articles but you want to remove the main character article, Mahsa Amini???!!! and for that you are using Wikipedia laws??? it is not logical ... Caravaneternity (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Caravaneternity, this article appears to be an attempt to evade consensus at the Death of Mahsa Amini article, e.g. as discussed in a section about the use of the word "allegedly", and appears to create a POV fork contrary to WP:NPOV policy, as well as issues related to using WP:WIKIVOICE. There also appears to be no discussion on the Death of Mahsa Amini Talk page after the attempt to rename that article was reverted and the consensus process noted on your Talk page. A merge seems best at this time so editors can work together according to policies and guidelines, which will not remove Mahsa Amini from the encyclopedia, but instead help ensure that her life, death, and legacy is presented in an encyclopedic manner and according to consensus. Beccaynr (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr I think there is a big misunderstanding ..No it's not trying to evade consensus at the Death of Mahsa Amini article. just go and see what happened at Wikipedia Farsi. there are separated articles for all subjects related to Mahsa Amini including biography, death, protests, timeline of protests and several other articles. I don't know why you are resisting to advance articles with the subjects of Mahsa Amini. there is no different between now and future. we can advance articles now why in future?? Caravaneternity (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Persian Wikipedia is a terrible and highly biased project. That project is indeed a joke. English Wikipedia should not and does not follow that project. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2You are one of the active users and administrators of The Persian Wiki. This way of talking about it is a little strange!!!! Caravaneternity (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly how I know that that project is no more than a joke. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have even created a stand-alone article for the MahsaAmini hashtag: fa:مهسا امینی (هشتگ). Should the English Wikipedia follow them? Definitely not. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At Persian Wikipedia, they do not describe the disputes, but engage in them. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
creating article for this hashtag is a right work.. for the first time in tweeter a hashtage has been retweeted more than 200 millions times .. so this it is notable .. Caravaneternity (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caravaneternity, I appreciate your clarification, but other language versions of Wikipedia are independent, so what happens at Wikipedia Farsi will not necessarily guide what happens here. Beccaynr (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We know they are independent but Wikipedia rules are same for all versions of it. Knowing how they act can be helpful for us because they know more than us about Iran and events related to it. H2KL (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Creating an article titled Mahsa Amini(Jina), as this article was before it was moved (as noted below, and now reflected in the title of this AfD), might be considered WP:GAMENAME, because it happened after an attempt to rename the Death of Mahsa Amini article was reverted and the page protected, as described in my comment above. My only concern is whether this article improves the encyclopedia at this time. Based on the sources and the article, it also appears to be a WP:TNT situation, supporting a merge and deletion so the biography can be developed with reliable sources and in accordance with NPOV policy, within the Death of Mahsa Amini article until a WP:SPLIT is warranted. Beccaynr (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr Thank you for your explanation.. but we are speaking about ongoing events and I believe it is best to complete this article together, Although the article is good but unfortunately many parts of the content is repeatedly removed despite the reliable sources. H2KL (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@H2KL: FWIW Wikipedia rules are not at all the same across sites. Notability is determined by local consensus. Innisfree987 (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Innisfree987 I know it but what I said is their work can help us for a better consensus. H2KL (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per WP:N. She is notable for her unfortunate death, not as a person. The vast majority of the information in this article is already mentioned in Death of Mahsa Amini. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mahsa amini is the main symbole of iranian new unity. It would be better to keep this article like Hadis Najafi. It will be completed soon. DavidR2021 (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone cares about "iranian New unity. Wikipedia isn't your national encyclopedia. 95.70.214.25 (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's nothing in WP:NBIO that asserts that to be notable a person must be notable before they died. A person may not be notable while they are alive, but become notable through their notable death, thus because of the manner in which they die or the circumstances of their death. See WP:1E. If a person dies heroically in battle or is murdered by state actors leading to the person becoming a martyr, then their death and eventually the person themself will likely one day become all the more notable than, say, one of the many victims of a serial killer. If a person becomes notable in the first instance because of their death, then it may take some time for reporters in the mainstream media to conduct research, or carry out interviews with surviving family members, lovers, friends, workmates etc to fill in the missing details of that person's life. If there's a Wikipedia article entitled the Death of Jane Doe, then that article should only be about the death of Jane Doe, with perhaps a very little about what Jane Doe did and what was done to her immediately leading up to her death, and then a lttle more information about the consequences of her death. The article should not contain information about Jane Doe's life prior to her death for the obvious reason that the article is not about her life but about her death. In my view, compared to the current EB online and other online encyclopaedias, many Wikipedia articles are far too long and badly structured precisely because they have grown organically with the help of many contributors. Trying to break the article up later comes with its own problems. Much better if possible to try to impose a logical hierarchy on the article at the beginning with subarticles created from the word go in the manner of a scholarly encyclopaedia put together by experts. To summarise then, every WP article about the notable death of a person thereby makes the person notable, and should be accompanied at the outset by a subarticle about their life, even if initially the subarticle is merely a single sentence stub. 82.15.254.27 (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia also know seems like it is supporting Western media and its propaganda. Why can't they tell? Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cause Eastern media sources are unreliable? Chinese media is horribly biased, as are Russian sources. We can only use what we can trust. Oaktree b (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We already have [[Death of Mahsa Amini] and we don't need an article on her alone when we already have one on her death which is more notable than her. Merge to Death of Mahsa Amini is more relevant ... Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk)
Keep: -Mahsa Amini and Nika Shakarami in Iran are the heroes of the people and People like to know more about them and their life. in my opinion Resources are complete and separating articles to prevent over-enlargement of the article is the best Idea. حامدصالحزاده (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The account was created juts an hour before this vote. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, (Personal attack removed). I signed up on 19 July and was active in Persian Wikipedia. I also created this article کلیمیان سقز حامدصالحزاده (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let the record show that your Global Contribution report shows two edits prior to this month.[10] WWGB (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is his second edit in en Wikipedia 56 mins before this AFD. @حامدصالحزاده: No Personal Attack please. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB As you said at the bottom of this page: Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit. according to Global Contribution, although not very active, this user created his account on 19 July and created an article. so he is right. H2KL (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article's language is not neutral at all and it's very subjective. That can be fixed, but the main problem is that there's not much to cover about her other than her unfortunate death. She was not notable in life and not many biographical details are available to warrant a separate article. All the info on this page can easily fit into the article on her death. Keivan.f^Talk 04:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now then split later, once there are more good sources available describing her life story, and details about who she was as a person. Additional info will justify expansion into more articles in the future. This may be similar to George Floyd, where he was previously not considered notable before his death (but now has his own biography page), and there are multiple other related articles as well: Murder of George Floyd, Reactions to the murder of George Floyd, George Floyd protests, Reactions to the George Floyd protests, etc. There is no reason why the same structure can't be applied here with Mahsa Amini, once enough information comes to light to justify additional related articles, etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As many others pointed out here, Mahsa Amini was not notable before her death, so the title does not meet the GNG criteria. There is already a page covering her death. Plus, the content is so POVish. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
but as other users said there are many notable persons who people know them after death ..just like this George Floyd and they have articles for their biography .. حامدصالحزاده (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: According to the profile of this user Mhhossein he is very proud of to be muslim. So he is not neutral at leat about this Mahsa Amini because as you know muslims believes in rules like Hijab to put limitation on women and don't like thhose women who don't observe hijab.H2KL (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This commentary is bordering on WP:NPA. Please limit your comments to article content, and do not disparage other editors. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The comments of the user H2KL are insulting; @admins: please stop him/her from editing in Wikipedia or atleast from such articles and pages. It seems the user has anti-Muslim thoughts and it makes him/her not neutral in such discussions. There are 2 billion Muslims in the world, you can not accuse and oppose all of them. Neutrality in wikipedia is important. Savalanni (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. 103.141.159.227 (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This IP and Muhafiz-e-Pakistan are both from Pakistan. Why are users from pakistan so interested in Mahsa Amini articles?!! Something is wrong here.H2KL (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor of Wikipedia should be cognisant of Wikipedia:Five pillars, in particular, Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit. WWGB (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@H2KL so? Pakistanis are firm believers in Islam and we stand alongside our Iranian brothers. I just casted a vote here. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to this clear confession, this IP and Muafiz-e-Pakistan are not neutral on Wikipedia at least about this Mahsa Amini. Please study Malala Yousafzai too. H2KL (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another breach of WP:NPA. If such behaviour continues, you will face sanctions. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The comments of the user H2KL are insulting; @admins: please stop him/her from editing in Wikipedia or atleast from such articles and pages. It seems the user has anti-Muslim thoughts and it makes him/her not neutral in such discussions. There are 2 billion Muslims in the world, you can not accuse and oppose all of them. Neutrality in wikipedia is important. Savalanni (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the reviewer manager: As you can see, there are a lot of differences between users about this article. unfortunately most of the users operate with personal prejudices and beliefs and are not neutral towards the contents of this article. They are repeatedly changing and removing most of the biographical content. It can be said that there are serious differences, conflicts and unrest like inside Iran on Wikipedia. Considering the sensitivity of the issue and the fact that <the majority votes is not the criterion of action>, I request you to be extremely careful about keeping or merging it with other articles. What is certain is that Mahsa Amini is now known to everyone, even to people who want the article removed and therefore we can say she is notable. Several incidents in a row have led to this recognition: The fact that She was young and female when she died and many young females have lot of problem with Iran's government rules like Hijab. Also Women rights in Iran, the behavior of the Iranian morality police toward people specially women, the history of people's conflicts with the Iranian government, international reactions toward Iran's protests, Iran's internal protests, the reactions of Iranian government supporters, and dozens of other events that have happened. According to this facts and considering that there are several Articles for the persons like her on Wikipedia, it is possible to have Mehsa Amini's biography article in addition to the previous ones. ThanksCaravaneternity (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I say Keep, even though I'm generally against profiling people who were not notable in their lifetime. There's a precedent with George Floyd, which exists alongside Murder of George Floyd.--Ideophagous (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
George Floyd (prose size: 18 kB, 3026 words) is too long to be merged into Murder of George Floyd (prose size: 35 kB, 5707 words), so it has been split. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article will be much bigger than George Floyd because it is related to a bigger subject: Women right .. although many parts and sources of the content was deliberately removed without editing or correcting the information .. but it will surely be completed soon.. H2KL (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"This article will be much bigger than George Floyd". In your dreams ..... WWGB (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, according to WP:N, George Floyd was not notable and therefore no matter how much can be written about him, there shouldn't be an article about him separate from the one about his murder, which is the only thing that makes him notable. Notability of a topic and the amount of information available about that topic are two completely different things. Given how prominent Mahsa Amini has become worldwide (there's even a plan by the city of Paris to make her an honorary citizen posthumously and name a public location after her), I think if George Floyd can have his own article, so can she.-- Ideophagous (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. According to WP:BIO1E, "if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." The thing is almost nobody in Iran cared about Mahsa Amini or other victims from the very beginning. The people, extremely exhausted by suppression from inside and extremely impoverished by sanctions from outside, are just looking for the smallest pretexts to burst out. One day it's the shortage of water in arid Iran, another day the collapse of a building, and today the suspicious death of a woman. That's why we know very little about Mahsa Amini.

The French government was recently accused of fomenting the unrest in Iran.[11] And they soon talked about making Mahsa Amini their honorary citizen and naming places after her. Not a bad reaction. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge in Death of Mahsa Amini. See also this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadis Najafi. Savalanni (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"she was not notable while she was alive, her death and the reactions to it are a notable event with plentiful coverage in reliable sources". This means the article Death of Mahsa Amini must be kept and here discussed article Mahsa Amini should be better merged and redirected to it. We should not have two articles in Wikipedia both covering same events! Savalanni (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)— Savalanni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside of This topic. [reply]

@Singularitywiki Your claim are not true, please look at my global contributions [12], I am registerd in Wiki on Feb. 2022 and done many edits and created new articles in other Wikipedias like AZB Wiki. In future please research enough to avoid false accusations. Savalanni (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What claims my friend? Singularitywiki (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the numerous above comments.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The subject article has already been moved to Mahsa Amini per naming conventions. I just early-closed Talk:Mahsa Amini#Requested move 3 October 2022 per WP:AVALANCHE & WP:NOTBURO. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
merge or delete to Death of Mahsa Amini already well written there and we can't keep two different fair use image if this page stays.. Shadow4dark (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is a BLP1E (clearly only notable for death and the events that it sparked). A brief section in the event article sufficiently covers her bio, everything else is event related. --Masem (t) 13:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Death of Mahsa Amini. Her death and teh subsequent events that triggered are notable and her bio should be part of it, but there is no notability independent of that. -- Whpq (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is my opinion.. because The difference between Mahsa Amini and other victims of Iran's protests is that the protests started with her death and the protests have been associated with her name and are still going on after a few weeks. Her character is exactly like Mohamed Bouazizi, who led the Tunisian revolution and the Arab Spring in Arab countries. So this fact cannot be ignored. Characters like George Floyd and Mohamed Bouazizi had the same role that Mehsa Amini has now in Iran. So, with this explanation, it should be said that an article is needed to know more about her and her life apart from the incident of her death, so that people can get to know her more. Especially when the mayor of Paris Anne Hidalgo introduced her as an honorary citizen of Paris and named one of the streets of this city after her. Th Fact is this so please keep this article and let it be completed on an appropriate time. Dyakozaman (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

your argumentation about the case of "Mohamed Bouazizi" has an issue: in Wikipedia there is an article named "Mohamed Bouazizi" but there is no article named "Death of Mohamed Bouazizi"; creating two different articles in Wikipedia about same thing is not logical.

The only exeption known for me is in case of "George Floyd"; from my point of view it was also not logical there to create an article about "George Floyd" besides the article covering his death; this means one mistake is already happend, it must be corrected, we must not repeat the same mistake here based on that mistake! I may guess two reasons for creating the second article in case of "George Floyd": 1. English version of Wikipedia covers events in English speaking countries exceptionally. (This is normal and could be seen in other Wikis, e.g. Farsi Wikipedia covers the events in Iran with exception) 2. existence of too much information and facts about "George Floyd"'s life before his death. His life is well analysed and well documented.

But in case of Mahsa Amini none of these two reasons could be seen. We can not write more than two lines with ensiclopedic content about Mahsa Amini before her death. If you allow two articles about the case of Mahsa Amini, you must also allow two articles in case of Death of Hadis Najafi and in thousands of other cases. Savalanni (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Savalanni I think the wiki users didn't make any mistakes about Mohamed Bouazizi and George Floyd. Also I think It is true that Iran's protests begun with Mahsa Amini death and her name is on the protests. Hadis najafi was one of the protestors who went to street to protest Mahsa Amini's death like Nika Shakarami and others. We must help to introduce them to the people not try to delete their articles. Rezaalavi023 (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rezaalavi023 we have already an article named Death of Mahsa Amini. Why we should have another one? Like in case of Death of Hadis Najafi we need only to have one article not two! Even in case of "Mohamed Bouazizi" we have only one article not two (it means "Death of Mohamed Bouazizi" is redirected to "Mohamed Bouazizi"). As I have written above the case of "George Floyd" was an exeption. Savalanni (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this case is an exception too if you could study the contemporary history of iran, this recent events are so uniqe. better to have biography separated from death story as well as protests relevant to it. Dyakozaman (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Death of Mahsa Amini, because she was only notable for her death. Her personal life is not notable or relevant. 你好... ^{Community Centre} 22:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Death of Mahsa Amini, pShe was a normal person whose death triggered a series of events. Her personal life does not matter here. Singularitywiki (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Singularitywiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside of this topic. global contributios shows the user is registered newly and is acrtive only in single Wiki with merely 20 edits! Savalanni (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a poor use of the SPA template. WWGB (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is nothing to be merged, the article should be better deleted. Savalanni (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has already !voted above. WWGB (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a popular vote system, this is a consensus based discussion. Singularitywiki (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it implements confusion. — Roj im (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments and explanations as well as her name worldwide and the ongoing protests in Iran and other countries there is no problem with WP:NBIO. and we need this article. Rezaalavi023 (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep we have cases like George Floyd which he was not considered notable before his death, but now he has his own stand-alone article' and even more articles about him like: Reactions to the murder of George Floyd, George Floyd protests, Reactions to the George Floyd protests, why the same thing can't be implemented here? and moreover; mahsa amini known worldwide, people want to know more about her biography, especially people in Iran, and we know how women treated in iran, it's not like it's first and last time these things have happened, as i believe how George Floyd is an example against racism and how valued is human live and its rights no matter what, mahsa amini is also an example for women's rights in iran. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we can not write more than two lines with ensiclopedic quality about Mahsa Amini before her death. All are related to her death. Savalanni (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a good article with more than two lines you said. i think as we can speak new things about George Floyd after monthes, new information will be adding to this article too. Dyakozaman (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the article Mahsa Amini you can not find more than two lines with ensiclopedic quality content about the person of Mahsa Amini; over 95% of its content are directly or indirectly related to her death. I would agree to create a new article if we had enough material to create an article. It means better delete the article (because nothing new inside it) and wait if we have enough material in future to start a new article, then we can split the article Death of Mahsa Amini into two. Savalanni (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's different really from death article but If you could go to the view history of the article here you see lot of its content have been removed several times even when they have reliable sources. but It can be fixed later. Rezaalavi023 (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep. We can keep it as it has notability. More importantly, keeping the article helps us keeping the related articles such as Death of Mahsa Amini more concise. Pirehelo (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see a deluge of Kurdish speakers here. They have probably been canvassed. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is now at the top of search results, which could explain why more people are participating in the discussion. Per WP:INAPPNOTE, Canvassing normally involves the posting of messages, and there appears to be no evidence to support a suggestion of canvassing. Beccaynr (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The appearance of new contributors is understandable, but the high and exaggerated ratio of Kurdish speakers to others is not. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But we cannot use someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views - to suggest canvassing may be occuring, we would need evidence of inappropriate message posting or other canvassing conduct. Beccaynr (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one such evidence. I am sure there are more than that, but looking for more evidence is not worth my time. The user (Rezaalavi023) has been blocked at fawiki as a sock and canvasses here and we should still remain optimistic that he will be an asset! 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @4nn1l2, it is quite normal some kurdish user are here because Mahsa Amini is an Iranian Kurd and she is most famous Iranian kurd all over the world.. so no need canvassing. and being curious about her is completely normal. Rezaalavi023 (talk) 08:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2 look at this link. I just informed him about this article's discussion and did not tell him to vote as my wish. he voted to delete this article. any other edition was just after his vote. Rezaalavi023 (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's not forget that you tried to canvas me to vote to keep it.[13] — Roj im (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
but we see you voted to delete it. and let see this according to it you have been informed only about discussion whatever your vote is ,either keep or delete, and other edits are after you voted. H2KL (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. I was a bit sarcastic about the later edits :) — Roj im (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, though I would support a selective merge to Death of Mahsa Amini. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, maintaining a redirect. Both articles have enjoyed extremely high page views and people are likely to search for Mahsa Amini rather than Death of Mahsa Amini.--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the subject is totally notable, but better to merge with Death of Mahsa Amini, however, in Persian wiki both are exits and better to keep this article for now until Persian users decide about it. ZEP55 (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge – subect is notable only for her death. The biographical content here is not enough to have its own article, should be integrated into Death of Mahsa Amini. Madeline (part of me) 10:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject is notable, It's better to keep it like other wikis (persian wiki and so on). Due to the high importance of Mahsa Amini's topic, users there have created many articles under it, such as biography, death, protests, timeline of protests, killed protestors, arrested persons, reactions, etc. you can see all articles in this category in the persian wiki. Maybe We can't have all those articles in english wiki but at least we can keep this article and I think it's better choice. حمیدنوذری (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Persian Wikipedia can not be used as "Idol" for EN Wikipedia. English Wikipedia needs enycplopedic content to generate an independent bio article for Mahsa Amini, we must not repeat their mistake here. You do not have the needed material for an article, maximum availabe content is 2 lines, the rest are related to her death! On the other hand the referred articles in Persian wikipedia are against your reasoning: most of them do not carry the name of Mahsa Amini at all, they named even the protests not after Mahsa Amini but named it as: "Nationwide protests of 1401 in Iran". The protests began actually with death of Mahsa Amini but it can not now be named after her. Analogy: Arab spring began with death of Mohamed Bouazizi, but is not named after him. Savalanni (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All wikis are independent but they can help eachother to do best specially about this topic that is about an Iranian person. There are tens of experienced special users and managers who work for years (some of them more than ten years) on persian wiki and know very well what they are doing. they created those articles and full protected them. As far as I know you are just a user with some edits on Wikipedia and you cannot judge their work and say with certainty that they are wrong. On the other hand all those articles they created are related to each other and all of them are a subset of Mahsa Amini's title. حمیدنوذری (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect because it's her arrest, death & reaction to it (including the protests) that are notable. She has no notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally fails WP:GNG. We already got Mahsa Amini protests, I don't see why more unwarranted WP:CFORKs need to be created. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3D printed weapons and parts

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

Some discussion on talk page regarding notability several years back. Seems questionable enough to merit a tag for AfD to revisit for further discussion. Shaded0 (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Firearms and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:3D printed firearms exist, and many things listed have their own articles, so its a valid navigational and informational list. Dream Focus 09:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do think that this Ars Technica article cited in the article does go over the concept as a whole, like:
- "The prospect of wide-spread 3D handgun printing already has at least one congressman, Steve Israel (D-NY), up in arms to extend and expand the Undetectable Firearms Act to ensure that it covers magazines and other 3D printed components, which would handily squash the "Liberator" and any of its derivatives."
- "On one hand, it's difficult to envision a practical use-case for a 3D printed firearm, since producing one requires that you own a relatively expensive 3D printer. If you're a US citizen and you're just aiming to have a handgun, it would be far more convenient and affordable to simply amble on down to a place that sells them and buy one. However, there are a growing number of folks concerned that citizen access to firearms will grow progressively more difficult over the next few years and who might be keenly interested in the ability to produce their own, without having to rely on the consent of the government."

Even if this Ars Technica article in particular is unsatisfactory, I remain confident that coverage about 3D-printed weaponmaking as a concept is likely to exist. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also 3D printed firearm. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Sources are "likely to exist" isn't a good rationale to Keep this article. But is it realistic to ask participants to review 100+ references? Allowing a final week to consider the status of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept is covered in plenty of RS'es, so a list is appropriate. I'm struggling to see the reason for a final relist when no one is arguing against retention--the nom itself seems to be largely procedural. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article's subject appears to meet WP:LISTN, with the Ars Technica piece above and sources like this 3d Printing-specific publisher piece, Slate, and this source by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, all of which discuss 3D printed weapons as a group and then all list some of them, which is WP:LISTN's criteria. I found other examples but I wanted to limit them to three, though I tried to pick three very different sources to show that it's not niche coverage limited to one type of source. - Aoidh (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alya Toure

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. The subject only appears to have routine coverage about transfers/loans such as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. JTtheOG (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only coverage that can be found from a search seems to be routine in nature, meaning this person fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Aoidh (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Pearce

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. The PROD was contested with the rationale that her books have been reviewed, meeting WP:NAUTHOR #3, but that criteria specifically says that the person must have "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..." This article's subject has not created any "significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and fails WP:NAUTHOR. Simply having your books reviewed is not a criteria of any notability guideline for an author. Aoidh (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Georgia (U.S. state), and North Carolina. Aoidh (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I count 15 books, that seems like a substantial "body of work". With the reviews, I'd say she's passed AUTHOR, but I don't see the reviews. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see [14], this [15], this [16] and [17]. Should easily pass. Oaktree b (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Having a "substantial body of work" is not a criteria for notability. Book reviews existing do not show notability for the author of said books unless they are a "significant or well-known work" and this is not the case here; they are run-of-the-mill books and no sources describe or allude to them being significant works in any way. Merely having reviews does not meet WP:NAUTHOR, they must be reviews of significant works, and those reviews very specifically must be in addition to sources showing that the works are significant; merely having book reviews is not a criteria for notability. The reviews you cited do not have any significant coverage of the author herself, so she similarly fails WP:GNG. What notability guideline are you suggesting she meets? - Aoidh (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AUTHOR 3, as above. We've kept articles on authors in AfD will less reviews than this lady has. For some authors, we're barely able to find 2 reviews; this one has at least 4 in peer-reviewed journals. I stopped listing them after 4, GScholar has many more. Oaktree b (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet still, WP:AUTHOR #3 does not say having reviews shows notability, and vaguely alleging that other AfDs have been kept does not create an exception to Wikipedia's notability requirements; this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Maybe those other AfDs had significant coverage of the author; unless you can point to an actual AfD there's no way to know that this isn't an apples-to-oranges comparison. Regardless, that other articles may have been kept previously does not matter, and articles previously kept are deleted all the time, so an unrelated article being kept does not bar this one from needing to show notability. Unless and until the wording of WP:AUTHOR is changed to what you're suggesting, reviews alone do not show notability for an author, especially when all the reviews have trivial coverage of the author. - Aoidh (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know what to tell you then, it's been fine for every other AfD with books we've had. That's how I interpret it. She's created a "collective body of work" that's had reviews in major peer-reviewed journals. Not sure what more you can ask for. They aren't vanity publishers and fly-by-night journals, that's pretty much how we define notability for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a book article, it's an author article; WP:NBOOKS does say that reviews show notability, but this isn't an article about a book it's an author's article. That's a different standard and has different notability criteria. To meet WP:NAUTHOR the "collective body of work" must be "significant or well-known", merely having a "collective body of work" that has had reviews is very specifically not part of that criteria. We define notability on Wikipedia by the notability criteria, and this article does not meet them. If you're arguing that because the reviews are reliable sources that this shows notability then that's not an WP:NAUTHOR argument, that's a WP:GNG argument, and if that's what you're suggesting then per WP:GNG the article's subject must have significant coverage in those reliable sources. This article's subject does not have significant coverage in those reviews; any mention of this article's subject is trivial and the sources are discussing books, not this article's subject. When you say Not sure what more you can ask for I'm asking for nothing more than the bare minimum: I'm asking for her to meet a notability guideline, ideally with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and if we can't have that, then evidence that the article's subject meets WP:NAUTHOR by demonstrating that the article's subject has created a "significant or well-known" work. If this article's subject cannot meet this very basic and simple requirement, then it does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As well as the above, I found some other fairly robust reviews. This is a solid as it gets. The article needs some work. scope_creep^Talk 09:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: What notability criteria says book reviews show notability for the authors? WP:NAUTHOR certainly doesn't support that. There are no sources that say these books are "significant or well-known" in any way, which is required. Reviews are very specifically and unambiguously in addition to that requirement; merely having just book reviews means nothing. - Aoidh (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh: How are you, in this fine morning. The standard for Afd, is if you can find three reviews, then the author is notable. They are true secondary sources that show that critical analysis has been undertaken, that is independent. WP:NAUTHOR #3 or #4 is probably satisfied. I wouldn't hack it too much. The thing about these writers, is you don't know how popular they really are by looking at the articles, unless it tells you explicitly. Due to the web effect, books that would have had a perhaps had a regional effect now have world-wide effect due to the specific targetting of a specific groups, and they are written for that group. So often you look at writer doing this kind of work, and you don't realise that they might have readerships for example, in 80 countries, of millions of 14 years olds or 9 year olds. Its that type of reading by the looks of it and you just don't know. So reviews are one way of guaging how well known the person is well known. scope_creep^Talk 09:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I am fine and I hope you are as well, thank you for asking. :) Can you please provide a link to where this three-review standard can be found? I am genuinely not aware of this standard, because from what I see at WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NBOOK, reviews for books would show notability for the book, not for its author. From what WP:NAUTHOR #3 says, sources should explicitly say that the works are significant and not just that they exist; if we say that a work is so significant that just having written it makes a person notable, sources should support that claim. Even if it's something as simple as this, that would be more than I could find for this article's subject. There are a lot of sources I found online just now that allude to the significance of particular books; the NYT alone lists 100 a year, as does Time. That's 100 books per year from a single source that allude to significance of those books, so I don't think asking for a book to meet WP:NAUTHOR's "significant or well-known" criteria is an impossible requirement, especially for me because my standards for that are very low, but it's gotta be something more than a simple review; if reviews were good enough WP:NAUTHOR would say that. - Aoidh (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a review in the Gurdian [18]. scope_creep^Talk 11:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[19] Erik Doxtader was the last one with similar search results, it was kept. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That article was kept because the article's subject was an award-winning author with work in significant journals, that's very much not what this article has going on. - Aoidh (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to the efforts of editors including DaffodilOcean and Pburka to revise and add sources to the article, WP:AUTHOR notability seems more clearly supported by a collective body of work for which there are multiple reviews for multiple works, i.e. more than one notable book. There is some sourcing for biographical information that has been added as well. Beccaynr (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator is focusing on the significance of the author's body of work, but skipped over the second part of that sentence: "or well-known". When I discussed this page with the nominator before the AfD started, I pointed out 12 reviews in Kirkus Reviews, 10 reviews in Publishers Weekly, 11 reviews in School Library Journal, and 16 reviews in Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books. This is probably the most reviews I've ever seen at AfD, and clear evidence that her collective body of work is well-known (and probably significant, too). pburka (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Jim Giles (9 April 2008). "Harnessing river whirlpools puts energy on tap". New Scientist. Retrieved 4 October 2022.

[2] Lee Williams (10 October 2016). "Hydroelectric generators tap the backwaters for energy". The IET. Retrieved 4 October 2022.

[3] Tim Stevens (3 December 2008). "VIVACE generates big power from small currents". Engadget. Retrieved 4 October 2022.

[4] Edwin Cartlidge (28 November 2008). "Renewable energy source inspired by fish". Physics World. Retrieved 4 October 2022.

[5] Beth LeBlanc (18 January 2015). "Company studies making power from water". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved 4 October 2022.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]