Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 18	August 20 >

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

I'm discounting the opinions of of the sock accounts. If this does become the biggest TV series in Iran, and there are sources supporting this claim, it can be restored. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salman the Persian (TV series)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV, not even filmed yet, its website appears to be last updated a few years ago, no significant coverage to establish notability. It's also being persistently cross-wiki spammed to other wikis by same user with bad machine translations again and again even after they are deleted. Tehonk (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added COI notice based on [1] LizardJr8 (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not logical: Hi. I'm one of the crew members of Salman the Persian TV series, I'm heavily involved with the project, which is the biggest cultural project in history of Iran and Iranian government. We filmed the first season of the series and we are currently filming the second season. "Not even filmed yet" doesn't mean anything when we are literally filming. I will continue to improve the article, but please remove the deleation template from top of the article ASAP. As we are rapidly approaching into a big part of the production and we're going to publish even more information in the article, we cannot leave that deleation template to stay. Erfan Abolghasemi (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deleation process doesn't make any sense. This show is one of the biggest upcoming projects of Asia, and it is absolutely filming with thousands of people involved. Do not delete it. 87.247.180.206 (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously non-notable. No progress has been made in this film after stated date (December 2019), this article is mostly unsourced, and even if there are sources, they have an unclear style and/or are promotional. I don't know if this "big" film will be released in 2026 or 2027, but either it is not notable, it's not at the right moment to create this article years ahead of time, or the film is not going to be notable enough for creation in the first place. HarukaAmaranth (話) 00:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know "No progress has been made"? you are checking western media aren't you? As even the article itself says, it is the biggest cultural project in Iran, and if you check Iranian media and educate yourself a little bit more, you can see the show is progressing every week, thousands of people are working every day, some of the most famous actors from Iran, Greece, Tunisia etc. are involved with it, and the show is going to have a worldwide release with multiple languages, what you're saying is so disingenuous and Ignorant. Also, this is not a "film", its a big budget TV show from one of the most respected Persian directors, which his last work was Mokhtarnameh. The article is pretty well-sourced aswell, and even if it wasn't, that doesn't mean it can't be improved and it has to be deleted. Arman Hawa (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: Hello. I know this upcoming series because I'm a big fan of its director's previous works, which were Shaheed-e Kufa & Mokhtarnameh. I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia's policies, but I can confidently say that even if this article is going to be deleted, there's going to be another one created since this show will be too big to not have a wikipedia article. So, if anyone wants my thoughts, do not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arman Hawa (talk • contribs) 12:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CU note Note that Arman Hawa is a sock of Erfan Abolghasemi. No comment on the IP. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

İttifaQ

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

Unclear notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did a quick search and no RS. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. NotAGenious (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basir Kamrani

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

Can't find any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC even when searching in Farsi (بصیر کامرانی). Article currently sourced only to a database source, which is woefully inadequate in terms of notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of GNG-passing coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romani people in Morocco

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

The article consists of 2 vague references and speculative statements from dubious sources, which casually suggest the possible existence of Romani people in Morocco. The field does not appear to be David J. Phillips' specialty, and all that is stated in the cited passage of his book is: "Some Kali or Gitan are probably in Morocco."

The information currently available is inadequate to confirm the presence of Romani communities in Morocco, and there appears to be practically no substantial academic discourse on the matter. The subject simply does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mooonswimmer 22:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Morocco. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject might warrant a sentence in Romani people, but otherwise the table row in Romani diaspora is an appropriate weight for the topic. There is just not enough meat here for an article to meet GNG. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with the above. No significant coverage from RS. Cinadon36 23:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. as there was opposition to the Redirect suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pitar Ason

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AfD attracted a single !vote that gave a twofold rationale for keep. 1) "The film is the first released film of Nipun Akter." WP:NFIC #2 could apply if the film was "a major part of their career", but there's no evidence that it was. 2) "The film is also selected for preservation in Bangladesh Film Archive." WP:NFO #4 could apply if the archive were selective like the National Film Registry, but it isn't. By law, a copy of every Bangladeshi film must be deposited with the Bangladesh Film Archive, it's indiscriminate.

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The only mentions are in articles about Nipu Akter, each of which mentions in passing that Pitar Ason was her first released film. It does not meet WP:NFILM. Policy WP:NOTPLOT tells us that the encyclopedia should treat creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing their development, design, reception, significance, and influence. No independent, in-depth sources exist on which we could base such an article. Worldbruce (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced by the explanation given in the first Afd: as Nipun's first film it can reasonably be considered a major part of her career. So Weak Keep; if not, then redirect to her page (Nipun Akter).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Is your thinking that the first film of every notable actor is inherently notable because every actor's first film can "reasonably be considered" a major part of their career"? (Or at least the first film in which they had a leading role?) Or is there a specific source that convinces you that someone thinks this film is a "major part of her career" - perhaps a source that describes it as her "big break", or one that attributes subsequent opportunities to her performance in this film, or evidence of a screening as part of a retrospective or tribute to her career, or ...? --Worldbruce (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-You said yourself: The only mentions are in articles about Nipu Akter, each of which mentions in passing that Pitar Ason was her first released film., so it seems important enough in her career to be mentioned; hence weak keep or redirect to her page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi entertainment news is highly formulaic. It's extremely common for an article focused on a film actor to mention what their first film was. Because in my experience dealing with Bangladeshi sources they do it indiscriminately, I've never considered the "first film" mention to be an indication that every first film is "a major part of their career" in the sense that WP:NFIC means.

Subsequent to your reply, Vinegarymass911 added a source that uses a different transliteration, Pitar Ashon. It is more than a passing mention: "I started out in acting after I came back to Bangladesh with 'Pitar Ashon'. Not only was the film a commercial success, but the audience received my debut very well as well and my name started to buzz all over the industry right after that. I did not have to look back after that ... 'Pitar Ashon' gave me a solid footing in the industry." If a third party (a biographer or entertainment critic, for example) were saying this, I would withdraw per WP:HEYMANN, but I'm uncomfortable saying a film is notable just because a participant in it says it was important to their career. I'll let more of the community weigh in. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is not a very old movie; there should be online sources. I tried and failed to find significant coverage. I am left to conclude that the movie is not notable. Redirect would not make sense given that many others were involved with the film, some with a stronger claim than Nipun Akter, and she is not the ideal redirect target as her article barely mentions the film.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. This AFD seems to have fallen through the cracks of our AFD system and is being manually relisted. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There clearly isn't a consensus to delete here, but I don't think one has formed to keep either. Relisting is unlikely to add more value, so going ahead and closing this. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tritschler brothers

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. The brothers were three of 110 American Gymnasts who competed in the Men's artistic individual all-around, out of 119 Gymnasts, and two of them competed in one of the 12 American teams in the Men's team, out of 13 teams; given the huge number of American athletes who competed in these games there is no reason to presume that further coverage exists, even if we were permitted to make such a presumption under SPORTCRIT.

The restorer (the articles were draftified under WP:LUGSTUBS) claims that WP:SIGCOV is contained within a Sports Illustrated article, a New York Times article, and an American Profile article, but the respective coverage of the topic within those articles is:

The last three American siblings on a team were Edward, Richard and William Tritschler, gymnasts at the 1904 St. Louis Games.
Not since Richard, Edward and William Tritschler — remember them? — competed in gymnastics in 1904 in St. Louis have three siblings qualified for the same Olympic Games.
In 1904, St. Louis brothers Edward, Richard and William Tritschler each qualified for the U.S. Olympic team in gymnastics, though none medaled during the Summer Games that year in their hometown.

However, with all of these being just a sentence long I do not believe that the requirements of WP:SIGCOV is met. BilledMammal (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and United States of America. BilledMammal (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this article out of William Tritschler, to cover him and his brothers Richard Tritschler and Edward Tritschler. As noted by BilledMammal (who neglected to notify me of this AfD; please notify people going forward, not everyone monitors their watchlist or is even on Wikipedia every day), all three had been draftified as part of the special group of Olympics stubs created by Lugnuts, primarily on grounds of being referenced only to two databases on Olympic athletes. However, the three have a point of notability as a group, which received widespread coverage in 2008. Since creating the combined article (which I also expanded with information on all three brothers that was available in the database sources and in others on the 1904 Olympics—Lugnuts' failure to write adequate articles on the subjects he started was a factor in the decision to mass draftify), I have searched for and found other 2008 coverage, which I will add today. In my view, added to their Olympics participation itself, that enduring coverage of the brothers as a group, in a variety of reliable sources, constitutes sufficient evidence of notability, brief though it is. There is also this tantalizing newspaper mention from 6 years before the St. Louis Olympics, "Turners Will Seek Prizes". The Day. New London, Connecticut. July 5, 1898. p. 3., which I presume refers to one of the three, probably William, as a prize-winner in Turnerfests, but I can't add that because I have been unable to shake loose a first name. (The "Lange" mentioned was probably Wilhelm Lange, who won an event at the Hamburg Turnfest—extensive mentions of that win survive on Google, presumably from a news agency, and I would in the old days have considered him worth a redlink.) For athletes from so long ago, when press coverage of both their sport and the Olympics will have been in newspapers that were not distributed nationally and many of which are presumably not only not digitized but defunct, and who also competed as amateurs and thus without any commercial hype, I believe it is important that we not judge the apparent lack of contemporary coverage against the amount of coverage that would be available on an Olympian in the current era. The 2008 coverage—from both when another set of 3 siblings qualified, and when those later siblings actually competed—indicates the Tritschler brothers were still remembered. That's enduring notability, and overcomes their not having medaled and Google not being able to show me much from their careers. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC) Adding for clarification after seeing BilledMammal's response: I'm asserting notability under WP:GNG, not under the sports-specific notability guideline. In response to @JoelleJay: I've since added two additional refs from a month or two later, by AP and AFP news agencies; although brief in all cases, the mentions were widespread, and not just when the other siblings initially qualified. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's enduring notability, and overcomes their not having medaled and Google not being able to show me much from their careers. But it doesn't overcome the lack of WP:SIGCOV, which is required to keep an article. At the moment, all we have are three sources each containing a single sentence of coverage that is included for no reason other than trivia; while there isn't much agreement on what SIGCOV requires, there is a broad consensus that it requires more than a single sentence. Unless you have been able to find other coverage we are not permitted to keep this article under WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, even if you believe other sources may exist.

(Regarding the "Turners Will Seek Prizes" article, if it is one of the brothers it will be William; Richard and Edward would have been 14 and 13 respectively, too young to compete. However, even if it is William, that article only contains a passing mention of him.) BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the clarification you added (in the future, I think it would be less confusing to add such clarification as a direct reply, rather than editing a comment that has been replied to in line with WP:TALK#REPLIED), the total coverage in the two sources is The Lopezes are the first three siblings to compete for the United States in the same Olympics since the Tritschler brothers, who competed in gymnastics in St. Louis in 1904 but failed to medal and The Lopez family is the first trio of siblings to represent the United States at the same Olympics since the Tritschler brothers competed in gymnastics at the 1904 Games in St. Louis 104 years ago. Although none of the Tritschlers won a medal, the Lopez family has already struck gold together when they triumphed at the 2005 world championships to become the first three siblings in any sport to claim world titles at the same competition.

The second is technically two sentences, but given that both sentences are focused on the Lopez's, only mentioning the Tritschler's in passing, I don't think even the most optimistic editor would argue that it constitutes WP:SIGCOV.

I'm asserting notability under WP:GNG, not under the sports-specific notability guideline. I'm confused; if WP:GNG is met then so is WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, as GNG requires multiple examples of SIGCOV while SPORTSCRIT #5 only requires one? BilledMammal (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three single-sentence mentions? Really? That's nowhere close to SIGCOV. None of those would even count toward NBASIC.

JoelleJay (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A search of Tritschler turnverein from 1890-1963 in Missouri brings up about 170 matches, but the majority are in German so I am unable to read them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking, BeanieFan11. I hadn't even thought of the German-language press; nothing from it came up in my Google search. The prize-winning is presumably in there, and possibly other citable stuff, but I can't see Newspapers.com (and my beating the bushes on Google showed it to be a not uncommon last name). Could you check for the three brothers by first name and last name? or just William Tritschler? (All three were born in the US, so I doubt they were known by the German equivalents of their first names. But there also may possibly be something under Gebrüder Tritschler, the German for "Tritschler brothers".) Yngvadottir (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep basically on IAR grounds. I completely agree the sources aren't great, and definitely wouldn't prove notability if this were the present day. Given the fact it's historical, well-written, properly sourced (even if the sources aren't great) and formerly covered by an SNG to the point where these brothers were "taken notice of," I think we make the encyclopedia worse by deleting this - and I make this argument very rarely at AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 12:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this is a keep. Still being discussed as a significant landmark in sporting history 104 years after the fact. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A trivial landmark, we don't even have a full story on them, just a few one line mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is zero coverage of the brothers in 1904-1905 newspapers in the LOC [2]. The only mention of "Tritschler" for those two years was shop keeper that was murdered. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried "Gebrüder Tritschler" at the LOC, as they have some German newspapers, still zero hits. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This could perhaps be an interesting trivia bit in the 1904 Olympics article, but they don't seem notable on their own. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com is in my opinion a better place for old sources than the LOC, and they have 170 matches for "tritschler turnverein" in the years they would have been covered. What do you think of any of those? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is one hit from 1905 and 4 from 1907, appears to talk about brothers in general. Zero hits from 1904.I Wouldn't call it substantive coverage. It's in the old fancy German script so it's hard to get Gtranslate to read them. I can't speak German to be honest so have no idea. I'm thinking it's still trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tried it at the New York State newspaper archive, which also has a few German newspapers. Still zero hits [3]. Tried both the German and English for brothers. I don't think this was a notable event at the time, it appears to just be a random bit of trivia someone dug up at some point and made note of it online. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't have SIGCOV, which is especially surprising considering that it's just the type of random trivia the Internet loves. AryKun (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're basically arguing for deletion on the grounds that over a century old newspapers never ran a feature story on them, which I find a bit ridiculous. They were clearly "of note." SportingFlyer T·C 14:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or any modern newspapers either for that matter. The NY Times in the article is a one-liner about them. It's trivial at best. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. I guess I'll go with an WP:IAR weak keep. SportingFlyer and Yngvadottir do have some fair points - and we might be able to consider this a very weak pass of NBASIC - as we do have some mildly in-depth Olympedia profiles on each of the brothers, plus the modern sources on them, and then the hundred-something matches in German newspapers that I located, that we haven't really been able to translate that well. In all, we do have enough material for something of somewhat decent length and this feels like a topic that should be in an encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steen Christiansen (politician)

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and instead the notability test for a mayor hinges on the ability to write and source some genuine substance about their time in office: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the town, and on and so forth.
But existence is the only notability claim being attempted here, and the article is referenced entirely to primary source directory entries that are not support for notability, with not a whit of coverage in media or books shown at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Denmark. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norm. Jamiebuba (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the creator of the article, I don't know if my opinion matter, but if it does, here goes.

This is a translated article from another wikipedia article. The article on the other wikipedia exists and hasn't been deleted, and I don't see why there should be different standards for Wikipedia based on language. There are multiple articles referring to the politician, and for me this is enough reason to have an article about him. He is mentioned on Albertslund Municipality, 2021 Danish local elections, and 2021 Albertslund municipal election.

I think it's unfortunate to mention a person in so many articles but not give readers a choice to learn more about him.

For the references, I can acknowledge that there are a lack of perfect sources, but to "solve" that someway through, I think adding a note informing that this articles may need better sources, could be an idea, and this could make way for editors focusing on importing future articles about him onto the pages. Thomediter (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that another article in a different language of Wikipedia exists has no bearing. In fact, I have found the English Wikipedia editors and admins having a much stricter guideline. It could also be because other languages, usually have fewer editors than English, hence there is less of a chance of deletion on them. Upper Deck Guy (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WAX, which explicitly points out that "this is a straight translation of an article that exists on another language Wikipedia" is not a valid keep argument in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with the nom. He/she is right on point. Upper Deck Guy (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat's argument - local politicians have to be more notable than just being politicians for English language wikipedia. SportingFlyer T·C 12:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Asra Nomani. Lost my original rationale in a script failure but the sourcing seems demonstrably too weak for a standalone. So much effort here to write stuff that has little engagement with policy based arguments like source analysis. Bare assertions and accusations are poor policy based arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque

AfDs for this article:

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

No real evidence of notability here. The level of sourcing is junk, and a search for more doesn't turn up anything much better. It could potentially be redirected to the page of the author, Asra Nomani. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Islam. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asra Nomani. The majority of references are interviews with Ms Nomani. I am happy to reconsider my !vote if additional sources are found. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle My preliminary search at google books gave me several academic references mentioning topic of "Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque". For lack of time I could not read all those in detail to take a position. I wish users like you help scrutinize all those sources before taking a position.

Following are few - most likely to be academic - I suppose more search at google books and google scholar may bring out more of them.

Black, Ann, et al. Modern Perspectives on Islamic Law. United Kingdom, Edward Elgar, 2013.
Duderija, Adis, and Rane, Halim. Islam and Muslims in the West: Major Issues and Debates. Germany, Springer International Publishing, 2018.
Emergent Religious Pluralisms. Germany, Springer International Publishing, 2019.
Living Islam Out Loud: American Muslim Women Speak. United States, Beacon Press, 2012.
Controversies in Contemporary Religion: Education, Law, Politics, Society, and Spirituality [3 Volumes]. United States, ABC-CLIO, 2014.
Faith and Feminism: Ecumenical Essays. United States, Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, 2014.
Smith, Jane I.. Islam in America. United States, Columbia University Press, 2010.
Religion, Spirituality and the Social Sciences: Challenging Marginalisation. United Kingdom, Policy Press, 2008.
Amer, Sahar. What is Veiling?. United Kingdom, University of North Carolina Press, 2014.
Nurturing Child and Adolescent Spirituality: Perspectives from the World's Religious Traditions. United Kingdom, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006.
Ali, Kecia. Sexual Ethics and Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur'an, Hadith, and Jurisprudence. Iran, Oneworld Publications, 2015.
Women, Leadership and Mosques: Changes in Contemporary Islamic Authority. Netherlands, Brill, 2012.

Bookku (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some papers from Google scholar and couple of news sources

Came across two news articles having mention to 'Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque'. Not sure just these 2 enough for proving notability on their own but indicate topic being part of continued discourse over a long period of time.

May 11, 2022 Piela, Anna. Mosques of Their Own. https://daily.jstor.org/mosques-of-their-own/
19 Mar 2005 Woman leads controversial US prayer https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2005/3/19/woman-leads-controversial-us-prayer

Bookku (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar preliminary search brought

JONES, J. (2021). ‘Acting upon our Religion’: Muslim women's movements and the remodelling of Islamic practice in India. Modern Asian Studies, 55(1), 40-74. doi:10.1017/S0026749X1900043X
Sur, E. (2020). Muslim Women’s Haji Ali Movement in Mumbai: Reimagining Feminism and Piety in Islam . Space and Culture, India, 8(2), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v8i2.845
Abdelghany, Sara. (2020). Making Space: Muslim-Americans and “Progressive” Gender Activism in Mosques after 9/11
Petersen, Jesper. Media and the Female Imam. Religions 2019, 10(3), 159; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10030159
Ashraf, ?. (2006) Feminists as hadith scholars? The case of a tradition concerning female leadership of prayer. ISSN 1013-8471 Journal for SemiticsVol. 15, No. 2 pp.178-310
King, Ursula. (2008). "Nine: Spirituality and gender viewed through a global lens". In Religion, spirituality and the social sciences. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Retrieved Aug 13, 2023, from https://doi.org/10.51952/9781847423634.ch009
Sur, E. (2020). Muslim Women’s Haji Ali Movement in Mumbai: Reimagining Feminism and Piety in Islam . Space and Culture, India, 8(2), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v8i2.845

Bookku (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Asra Nomani could not find sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: This is almost 17 year old article. Without putting any notice of notability on the article, no discussion on article talk page. WP:AFDBEFORE Point D1 expects search in Google Books. Even a cursory search in google books with the term "Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque" seem to show good number of reliable academic resources. We do not find any analysis of the same on the article talk page. If merge and redirect is important why that could not be discussed in advance - or even now after a keep - at the article talk page as part of WP:AFDBEFORE is unexplained.

We wonder what searches op conducted and what care has been taken on front of WP:AFDBEFORE before bringing the article directly to AFD without any intimations to active Women's and feminist WP project talk pages?

It is understandable many people do not like some of positions of Asra Nomani - but that does not mean academia and progressive communities reject each of her position for women's rights . If at all merge and redirect is important then why not consider articles like Islamic feminism. And why not take such discussion with RFC at Talk:Islamic feminism where users aware of the topic can participate better?

Bookku (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The age of the page is irrelevant. It is the duty of every AfD nominator to do a WP:BEFORE search, so yes, I did that, and I found little evidence of significant, non-trivial coverage. Other editors have presumably come to the same conclusion. If you think there is evidence of significant coverage, please produce the sources that you think establish this, but the list of sources above is just not that; it's just names from a simple google search. Also, I am entirely unfamiliar with Asra Nomani, and this AfD has nothing to do with anything about that subject. It is just bad, unsupported content. Please WP:AGF and do not cast aspersions by projecting imagined motivations onto other editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do very well respect WP:AGF and peer wikipedians. But with all due respect ".. do a WP:BEFORE search, so yes, I did that, .." and ".. Also, I am entirely unfamiliar with Asra Nomani, .." does not seem to add up.

Though not mandatory, IMHO spirit of the WP:AFDBEFORE policy expects thought be given to merge and redirect possibilities with a discussion on article talk page along with intimation at women related project talk pages like Women in Red, there is one project for Women in religion too. For a fair dealing to the topic people need longer time to go through sources and make their mind. May be after going through sources other editors including me also come to same conclusion as op but I read sources and take my word as final and now delete with limited AFD discussion sound bit awkward in a collaborative project.

Bookku (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The subject here is not Asra Nomani - that subject is simply the best merge target as the subject most directly related to this page (as this subject's author and promoter). Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I indicated is probability of more possibilities vs. just one single option this AFD banking on Wikipedia:Follow the leader seem to justify unilaterally. I suppose both of us have made our points, let us look forward to views from other enlightened editors and closer. Bookku (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a strong article that needs more references. That is an opportunity for improvement, not for deletion. The subject passes GNG even with existing sources. With those noted above, there is no valid reason to delete it. Frankly, I don't see any justification for this AfD at all, especially without a single hint on the Talk. IMHO, One of the (many) shortcomings of the AfD process is the fact that a nominator can come straight here without any discussion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong article ... on which plane of existence is this page that thing? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very polite and informative reply. You quote WP:AGF when an editor disagrees with you; perhaps you should try reading WP:CIVIL, especially since this nom seems deeply rooted in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To answer your rudely phrased question, I think the article presents the concept well. It needs work on the lede and more sources. It passes GNG, has RS in the article now, and there are (thank you, Bookku) more to allow for article growth and improvement. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the page currently barely contains any prose, just huge tracts of copy-paste quotes, and barely an inline citation, let alone a reliable source, in sight. The page is shoddy in the extreme, and to comment a such is not uncivil - incivility it something one directs at a person, not a page. The same cannot be said for your response, which lets fly the accusation of rudeness. If you would like a more constructive feedback then I would note that if you think this is a "strong article", well, you need to read some guidelines, pretty much any guidelines, because thinking this is good content, in its present state, is a WP:CIR issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest, let us not digress further. We have expressed ourselves and need not cross each of comment of other disagreeing users since that can amount to WP:BLUDGEON.

Easy resorting to WP:CIR claims is inadvisable per that essay itself, so I suggest to move on and let other users join in on main topic at hand

To some inclusionist users lower standard may suffice, as such WP:CIRNOT says "It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter. " (Here following spirit of WP:AFDBEFORE - without ignoring potential academic sources- becomes important). Users can have different perceptions what should be minimum criteria for any article. Last1in has already stated "This is a strong article that needs more references." Ignoring parts ".. needs more references.", "It needs work on the lede and more sources." and immediately reacting against other users favourable words like "strong article" sounds like cherry picked Nitpicking. WP:CIR itself expects not to quote that essay loosely, especially during disputes.

Bookku (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a lack of consensus and no review of sources brought up in this discussion. I also wonder if the external links in the article have been examined to see if they could be included as sources. It would also be helpful if, in addition to the deletion sorting, relevant WikiProjects were informed about this discussion by the nominator or any participant. Also, please stop with the sniping or CIR quips, it's not only not civil but if you participate in many AFD discussions, you're going to run into each other again and you don't want current disagreements to follow you into future AFD discussions. Focus on the article, not each other. If you are unhappy with the process of deletion discussions, take it to a policy talk page or the Village Pump.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ and redirect to Asra Nomani. Following @Liz's suggestion I looked at most of the external links. Some were dead. One or two didn't discuss the bill of rights. A few were audio (TL;DL - too long, didn't listen). The ones that discuss the bill of rights always mixed it together with her decision to lead prayer at the mosque, and her overall activism. I moved a bit into footnotes, but that doesn't amount to much.

Note that I didn't do a WP:BEFORE type search - if there's more out there it should be added to the article. But based on the current sourcing, no evidence of lasting impact from the document itself. Oblivy (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Oblivy, I appreciate you checking them out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I could see discussion wasn't heading in a productive direction, and your relisting comment read a bit like like a cry for help! Oblivy (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An optional suggestion - Drafty with Rename :

Brief: I would be okay if this article is draftified and developed further with renaming "Activism for gender equality in Mosques".

Detail: I can understand, Wikipedia culture is not as much accustomed to nuanced WP:AFDBEFORE. Anyways, I would like to bring attention to this 2004 NewYork Times article (to 2022, jstor, Piela, Anna. Mosques of Their Own. which indicates though not translated in proper movement "Activism for gender equality in Mosques" is a real and long sustained phenomena and multiple reliable academic sources cited in above discussion cover that significantly enough and consider "Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque" part thereof. Therefore I would be okay if this article is draftified and developed further with renaming "Activism for gender equality in Mosques". Similar activism is seen in other religions and Wikipedia covers that in bits and pieces but deserve proper encyclopedic coverage.

Bookku (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku your proposal for draftify>repurpose>rename seems promising, but maybe give some thought to how/if the repurposed article would present anti-reform views. Otherwise I think you may find yourself getting POV/balance/undue complaints. You could also create the article as a fresh draft but we'd lose the edit history here. Oblivy (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy Thanks for your inputs. Personally I am well versed with views of most sides and usually I do take reservations from on all sides on board as covered by Reliable sources - and this topic is covered by academics so I suppose that would be easy. Where I am aware different views are there in vernacular sources I put up a template for expansion. Some WP:DR may continue but that is how Wikipedia takes shape.

If some one can suggest more neutral title that also can be considered may be some thing like "Mosque and gender roles". Usually I would prefer to retain article history by 'draftify>repurpose>rename'. Bookku (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @EronMain and BDD: since participated at the article t/p previously. Input requests also posted at WT:ISLAM, Talk:Islamic feminism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Religion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism. Bookku (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and move to Mosque and Gender Roles or similar (Gender Roles and the Mosque?), per Booku's comments. There's good material here, but it doesn't require its own article just for the bill of rights as per my comments above. It seems Booku has a plan here, and I don't want my merge vote to get in the way.Oblivy (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many RS have been listed above as books, but pages are missing. If there is extensive coverage in at least 3 RS (also, different time periods), I will be voting Keep, but if not, then it is either delete or merge to somewhere else. Cinadon36 13:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are plenty of sources about the topic out there, so the article should remain so that someone has the opportunity to improve and expand it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asra Nomani. I searched for sources, and found none with coverage that justifies a standalone article; that is, there is little material to begin with, and all of it could reasonably be included in the author's biography. The age of the article is irrelevant, and the sources above do not appear to cover this topic in depth. This is not a reasonable basis for an article about gender equality in mosques, that would need to be written de novo regardless of the outcome here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bolanicyon

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

Dubious classification from Malkani, based on predatory journal article doi:10.4236/ojg.2019.912098. Only used by Malkani. No secondary sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organisms, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Please don't create several almost identical nominations, you should instead do a WP:BUNDLE. Tercer (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karkhimachli

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

Dubious classification from Malkani, based on predatory journal article doi:10.4236/ojg.2019.912098. Only used by Malkani. No secondary sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organisms, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moolatrilo

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

Dubious classification from Malkani, based on predatory journal article doi:10.4236/ojg.2019.912098. Only used by Malkani. No secondary sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organisms, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asifcroco

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

Dubious classification from Malkani, based on predatory journal article doi:10.4236/ojg.2019.912098. Only used by Malkani. No secondary sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organisms, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pakiwheel

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

Dubious classification from Malkani, based on predatory journal article doi:10.4236/ojg.2019.912098. Only used by Malkani. No secondary sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organisms, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sulaimanitherium

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

Dubious classification from Malkani, based on predatory journal article doi:10.4236/ojg.2019.912098. Only used by Malkani. No secondary sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organisms, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominate. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Attalides

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

Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject and does not meet criteria for WP:PROF and WP:GNG. The Wiki project proposed guidelines of WP:ACAD do not supersede the PROF and GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF - Notability (academics) - Criterion 6

"The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society."

Michael Attalides was the rector of Intercollege, subsequently renamed the University of Nicosia.^[4] Rector was/is the highest post at that institution.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my concern is that University of Nicosia doesn't seem to be considered a major academic institution. If we are too loose, any rector of any university around the world would require a wiki page. For example, the rector of Cyprus West University is Ömer Camcı, if a editor would make a case that Cyprus West University is a major academic institution, it could argue that he could have page Ömer Camcı. I do not believe it's accurate. The University of Nicosia which is a private fairly unknown institution, is just one institution among all the ones in Cyprus. See List of universities and colleges in Cyprus. Therefore Attalides who is the rector of a relatively unknown academic institution and clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG, in my opinion fails notability guidelines. To me a major academic institution or major academic society refers to major institutions such as Harvard or University of Oxford-(Rector: Irene Tracey) etc. Lethweimaster (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lethweimaster that's an interesting take. "Major academic" is a pretty weaselly word when I think about it. McGill University, yes, of course. What about the University of Hawaii? Yukon University? I have taken for granted that a big university is a major academic institution (Yukon U is not big, the U of Hawaii is).

I see the University of Nicosia ranks in the 501 to 600 tier of The Times worldwide university rankings, which is better than I expected. It's supposedly the biggest in Cyprus.

We'll see what others say about "major".

We used to have a notability noticeboard but it's defunct.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPROF further says "significant accredited college or university". I don't know anything about the university, although it seems to be accredited, e.g. by EQAR. That leaves "significant", which could be taken to mean many things. I would expect the institution to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines at a minimum, but there are likely other considerations (the university here being for-profit seems like a red flag to me, for example). Suriname0 (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same concerns, that's why I put it up for AFD. The university is indeed accredited, for what it means (accreditation is just a matter of paying the right people). The real criteria: "Significant University" is in my opinion, not even close to being fulfill. There is a ton of for profit universities and it's in their advantage, for maximum tuitions, to have their rector on wikipedia. I agree with Suriname0. Lethweimaster (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know others have different interpretations, but for me and from my American perspective, "major academic institution" is correlated to the amount of research that occurs at that institution (so generally, this refers to R1 and R2 institutions, per this list, with exceptions for very large public universities like the University of Hawaiʻi and prominent liberal arts colleges like Smith College). Again, that's my personal interpretation, so do with it what you want. I'm not sure of the Cypriot system of this, so I don't want to make a bold assertion of this case, but I'm bearish considering this is a private for-profit institution. Curbon7 (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming I have precisely the same intuitions about the US system. Hopefully someone more familiar with EU-country systems can chime in... Suriname0 (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Cyprus. Curbon7 (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per WP:PROF#6. Generally "significant accredited" University has been taken quite broadly in WP:PROF discussions to mean most universities with some history or a thousand students. Any university which makes the Times Higher Education listing of top world universities--at any ranking--is significant. Throw on top of that the ambassadorships (which are not sufficiently notable in themselves but can help to imply notability) and this seems like a pretty easy keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 14:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion, but after re-reading the conversation, as well as the article, including the University of Nicosia, which is For Profit, I believe the rectors's page may have been written as a vanity page (COI) for the University's benefits and credibility.Lethweimaster (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that this page has some issues, but I'm inclined to support the WP:NPROF argument. From what I know about the European system, sheer research volume matters a good bit less than in the US. However, we should substantiate the idea that this is a "major" institution. For me, that standard is probably met by this university's ranking in the Times – note that it's also in the top 200 for Business & Economics. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 15:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are several editors raising doubts about the significance of the education institution this subject is at even though they haven't registered "Delete" votes. Seems worthy of a bit more consideration despite the numerical majority of those advocating Keep. Of course, a closer can bring this discussion to an end at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPROF. Obviously a significant institution. Plus multiple high level posts in government. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it "obvious" that it's a significant institution? Many users were very unsure actually. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Gowri Parameswara Temple

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

Non-notable temple, does not have coverage to establish notability WP:GNG, news articles cited were about a procession — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Hinduism, India, and Andhra Pradesh. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing to salvage and no clear target for Merge or Redir. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Intervals of patent nonsense, and sources are not relevant to the article's content. HarukaAmaranth (話) 17:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is an unimportant and unneeded article. JustAGrook (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and has not enough WP:SIGCOV. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhogalingeswara swamy temple

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

Non-notable temple, does not have coverage to establish notability WP:GNG — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Hinduism, India, and Andhra Pradesh. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly non-notable; the only source that exists is not in English, which is treated as if there are no sources to begin with. HarukaAmaranth (話) 17:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vidohovë

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously soft deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Vidohovë, but all of those arguments still seem valid to this fork. Courcelles (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Albania, and Greece. Courcelles (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I nominated this article for deletion the first time. To give editors further context, they can also take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian–Greek Border War. This article is a leftover POVFORK sub-article of the deleted POVFORK Albanian–Greek Border War, so its existence makes no sense now. Ever since it was restored after the soft deletion, there has been opposition to it in the form of disruption (not that I justify the IPs, but I understand the opposition). There are no reliable sources about this "battle" and that's the biggest evidence that it's fictional, with the "Albanian–Greek Border War" being of the same case. Sources from one side and especially ones made during the communist era (in this case, sources from the totalitarian communist regime of Albania) do not qualify as reliable. I do not know why editors bother to create such types of articles, when they can contribute to existing articles in the topic area of this article, like the Greek Civil War. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the infobox, the entire article is sourced to a single book from 1969 which talks about "monarcho-fascists". If multiple RS are found to eloborate with some details, then a new article can be writen. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are given and even if you dont think that the Albanian-greek border war didnt happen and is just part of operation pyrsos , then this should still be a battle of each conflict no matter what you think. News papers talk about this , official modern sources talk about it , older sources fron the time .Modern documentaries have been made about it Etc... . Just because not a large part of greek sources(most talk about conflict small or large with Albania )dont want to mention a loss to Communist Albania doesn't mean it's fake. So stop trying to delete this Truth t (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have policies and guidelines to follow on Wikipedia, so we are not permitted to do whatever we think or want. Albanian communist sources are not reliable for the same reason that Soviet sources are not reliable for example, because they do not give an accurate depiction of the time. By the way, it's not a good idea to have an article about an alleged event which is only depicted by one or two sides (especially when it comes to battle articles), because you cannot possibly have an objective depiction like that. If there are any international and reliable sources, they can be presented here. If you want to add something to Operation Pyrsos or Greek Civil War, you are free to do so, but it has to be with reliable sources. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes im aware , but its not fair to just consider every source as unrelaible . It would be dumb of Communist Albania to present an invasion of greece to the meeting with other countries. Never the less we have other Albanian official sources or newspapers from that time just as this one :

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/18132354

This is most likely the background to battle of Vidohovë. Anyway what i was saying is that if you think the Albanian-greek war didnt happen then just place the battle as a part of Operation Psyros but dont delete the whole page if its unnesecary . The battle happend ,i dont like the fact that people want to delete this battle like many others were deleted . Its a part of history and we should accept it .

Thank you Truth t (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper counts as a primary source and it does not treat the "Greek invasion of Albania" as a fact. Even this source treats it as an allegation. This was also discussed and confirmed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian–Greek Border War. I'm sorry, but unless you have reliable sources, there is no reason for this article to exist on Wikipedia. Thank you. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As i stated previously there is absolutely no reason albania would invoke a conflict with greece and bring it up to the western powers . Dont you think thats stupid to falsely claim a conflict with someone who is supported by way more allies ? Truth t (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the news paper invokes "Greece trying to invade Albania " so no allegations at all , as it states that the greek state has in mind of doing this among some reasons . And this is obviously not the only newspaper or other source . We also have pther sources that say greece was trying to instigate

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/47670911

Now please there is simply no reason to destroy this page . Its history after all . I don't see how it's a bad edition to wikipedia . Thank you Truth t (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional articles

https://memorie.al/en/a-greek-plane-flying-in-the-villages-of-hoxhaj-and-markat-was-shot-down-by-albanian-forces-in-the-area-of-finiq-and-the-pilot-how-did-the-tirana-press-convey-the-provocations-of-august/

So yeah please do not remove this page just because some people wouldnt like to see it .

Thank you Truth t (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Eskes

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

Gails's article has been with us for ten years ...and i cannot find a ref pointing to her notability Victuallers (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Canada, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had to go back through the article's history - apparently, she studies(d?) brain function after a stroke, specifically in relation to fatigue: Feb 1999, Nov 2003, June 2015; and cognitive motor function: Dec 2013. There also seems to be a lot of work on general cognitive function and with children: 1990, July 2005, 2009, 2010, July 2012, Apr 2015 (There are a lot more - 10 pages minimum on Google Scholar.) When I searched her under "news" in Google, I got this paper she was an author on. I got two returns on Internet Archive, both articles she co-authored.

There was a lot of material removed from the article as unsourced, but it was inline sourced like an essay (author, year; no title, no URL). It looks like it was all WP:OR.

She's an expert in her field for certain, and I did find some articles about her research implementation (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; scanned, didn't do a thorough read through), but that's it. Everything else that returned is all her own material. I'm not finding much on just her. If the article were rewritten to focus on her research, would that be sufficient to keep it? (Would it be BLP then? Would it move to another type of article?) OIM20 (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm seeing several articles with hundreds of citations on Google Scholar, including some with the subject as first/last author, in what I believe to be a medium citation field. I think it is a marginal pass of WP:NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to citation record meeting WP:NACADEMIC-C1. There is also some media coverage of her research, but it's mainly the citations. --Mvqr (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Biomedicine is one home of big author, big citation papers, but with H41, I think this person pass NPROF. 128.252.154.1 (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Thousands of citations on a few dozen of papers likely passes WP:NPROF. ~Kvng (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1. Strong citation record even for a high-citation field. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with 19 papers that have 100+ citations this should be a clear keep and a testament to an impactful career. --hroest 18:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Najmuddin

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

Non-notable person. Does not have coverage to establish notability WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, no evidence of research work for WP:NPROF for the claims of being a researcher. Also, created by an WP:UPE sockfarm — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 14:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Medicine, India, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 14:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomination. Clearly fails WP:NPROF as well as general notability. --hroest 18:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayyank Sharrma

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

Non-notable film maker. No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, neither does with WP:NDIRECTOR. Also, created by an WP:UPE sockfarm — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 14:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, Haryana, and Punjab. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 14:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A mediocre filmography without much notability does not make the filmmaker notable in the first place, especially when none of which link to an existing article. HarukaAmaranth (話) 21:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palannoruwa Central College

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

The article has stood for 10 years but doesn't seem to have ever had a decent source. I can't find evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NORG in English or Sinhala (පලන්නොරුව මධ්‍ය මහා විද්‍යාලය). The best that I can find is Kelimandala (translated), which only mentions the school in passing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Berywam. ✗plicit 14:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MB14

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

They're only notable for reality show work, per WP:REALITYSINGER, I think that that means they should be redirected to one of the shows they're on OR the band they were affiliated with (Berywam) Mason (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Created by prolific sockmaster User:Red plosion. Also, does not meet WP:ARTIST. — Maile (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Berywam as per nomination suggestion. Fails WP:REALITYBIO and of the potential redirect targets, is perhaps most notable as the band member than the solo BGT performance (although is not sufficiently notable from either as an artist that justifies their own article). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Berywam where he is already covered, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. G5 speedy deletion. (non-admin closure) — Karnataka ^talk 18:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moynaguri High School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. RPSkokie (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There is general agreement that the topic is notable, so the main issue is whether this article violates WP:NOT. I don't see a consensus here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Human trafficking in popular culture

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

As too often happens with "in popular culture" topics, this is just a list or works which feature the topic of human trafficing. This is a violation of WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, MOS:TRIVIA, WP:IPC, and WP:NOTTVTROPES, in descending order of policy importance (WP:V too, given lack of footnotes for most stuff here). It is not impossible this could be written, but it needs to start with proper literature review of works that discuss this topic, not with OR listing of some works that the author or authors noticed feature this theme. Per NOTTVTROPES and all other cited guidelines. And to quote a collegue: "I would have no objection to recreating this as a proper, encyclopaedic prose article about the topic—as was done for WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction—in the event that sources that would allow us to do that while abiding by MOS:POPCULT emerge." In the meantime, we have Category:Works about human trafficking to catalogue notable works that depict this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Crime, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic may be notable, but this article is unacceptable in its current state, and would need a complete overhaul. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT is not cleanup. And this is what is needed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More than meets GNG, has been the topic of multiple independent reliable sources. Examples: [5][6][7][8][9][10]. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nikkimaria cites WP:NEXIST, but there is *already* an article on human trafficking. This is a discussion about a list specifically about its depiction in popular culture, which is unnecessary in its current state. I am sure it can be rewritten well in prose but this is simply an attempt to split off its bad parts and sweep it under the rug, as with most popular culture articles. Popular culture pages are not a dumping ground for unencyclopedic cruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I provide are specifically on the topic of human trafficking in popular culture, which demonstrate that NLIST is also met. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely not debating the underlying topic is notable. However, the entirety of the page needs to be rewritten. WP:DEL-REASON #14 includes "any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" (in this case, WP:INDISCRIMINATE list). Non-notability is not the sole reason a page may be deleted at AfD and I am arguing it violates WP:NOT right now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hesitant keep, as the parent article (human trafficking) is broad enough that a spinoff is warranted. I don't think it's appropriate to frame this as a list; the scope is too broad, and it is almost certain to turn into a list of popular works in which human trafficking is touched upon. An encyclopedic article discussion depictions of human trafficking would be a very good thing to have, and notability is met. If the article isn't knocked into shape I wouldn't oppose a redirect to the parent. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per other commenters. While the article needs a rewrite, I'd say it's definitely a notable topic and some sources seem to exist discussing it as well. I'd say the article deserves a chance to be patched up, and if it can't be, then I'm not against it going under the scrutiny of an AfD again. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999 As someone who has rewritten many similar articles (with User:TompaDompa doing even more similar work), it is my experience that nobody will touch this for a rewrite unless it is deleted. People are scared of deleting large swatches of... stuff... like what we have here. Now, we don't need a hard delete, I could create a stub on this based on the sources Nikkimaria provided, easily. But I am not going to waste my time adding a lead to what fails policies mentioned in the above, plus INDISCRMINATE Zx... mentions above. If there is consensus the current content can be removed (no objectionto it being hidden in history per SOFTDELETE, I can try to start something new, but I am not going to waste my time creating content that can never be DYKed or GAed or such because 95% of the article violates our policies (and creates the impression Wikipedia is the at the same level as TV Tropes). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I wouldn't ask you to do something you don't want to do. In any case, if you feel it's beneficial, though, I'd definitely support keeping the history around somewhere in case someone wants to revive the article in the future. Not sure what feature would be best for that, though. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - While the actual topic is undeniably notable, this current list is clearly in violation of WP:NOT and should not remain in its current form. I am also open to any of the above suggestions for preserving the history in some form, whether by Redirecting it to the main Human trafficking article or by removing the example farm here and leaving it as a stub. Rorshacma (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, as WP:DIRECTORY and WP:IINFO. Notability isn't the issue. In the event that someone is able to find enough sources to establish notability, there would be no encyclopedic content to WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete point me to an “IN POPULAR CULTURE” article that doesn’t violate WP:NOTTVTROPES and WP:LISTCRUFT. Because it sure isn’t this one. Dronebogus (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably a rhetorical question, but... @Dronebogus: If "in fiction" is close enough, there's Mars in fiction (a WP:Featured article). If not, there's Loch Ness Monster in popular culture. It can be done, but it requires actually doing the legwork of locating sources doing the analysis and summarizing it in our own words. The essay WP:CARGO pointed this out fifteen years ago. TompaDompa (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I knew about the “in fiction” articles and didn’t think they counted. Dronebogus (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to have stalled with an ambiguous consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dronebogus (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this seems like a clear case of deletion is not cleanup. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 23:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete things on the list that don't have their own Wikipedia articles, and separate the list between media based on true stories and media that is fictional. Dream Focus 16:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Category:Human trafficking in fiction exist, and a list is far more useful than a category since it allows information to be provided about each entry. Dream Focus 16:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NLIST/WP:GNG, per the sources identified above. This mostly seems like a content dispute; all four subsections can be removed entirely, replaced with a short paragraph summarizing the chapters and papers identified by User:Nikkimaria. (If someone wants to spin off a proper list article, they're welcome to do so.) Suriname0 (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Suriname0 You are effectively saying this needs a TNT (a total rewrite), or am I misunderstanding you? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the page is essentially a stub already and I don't personally think WP:TNT is useful for stubs when a new article can be easily written. I consider the stub "Human trafficking has been the subject and inspiration for popular culture.[1][2][3][4][5][6]" to be a better outcome than a redirect, because it maintains article history, is easier to build from, etc. (WP:TNTTNT). Suriname0 (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Suriname0 I'd agree with that, but there is still the issue of the lists below, which while slightly trimmed still seem to violate MOS:TRIVIA and other policies I cited. I'd be happy to withdraw this if someone removes all that ORish/listcruft content. For now, I'd encourage you to copypaste the proposed sentence to the lead, preferably with the references found in this AfD. It will be a start at rescuing this mess, indeed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally support major content removals during an open AFD; I think it often makes the discussion more confusing. Please ping me if the discussion closes as a Keep and I'm happy to remove the listed content. (I agree it violates TRIVIA as written, but that's clearly outside the scope of an AFD discussion imo as it's purely a content consideration.) Any other editor is welcome to spin that content off into a List of media related to human trafficking, although I would personally hate to create a list like that. Suriname0 (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'd say the academic sources linked above about human trafficking in film justify including a section about in the article on human trafficking on depiction in film. I don't know that they justify a list of movies that include human trafficking. We're not talking about a list of movies by genre, say, but a list based just on an element of the plot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG, and no need to remove or rearrange adequate information and article structure except for red-link entries. There seem to be many more films that could be listed in the article per the category (surprised, for example, that Sound of Freedom isn't on the list). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Article is bad" is not a reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're still about even when it comes to consensus. Relisting for another week to hopefully garner some discussion and a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It’s weak in its current form and it seems intractable as a topic. Human Trafficking has been a perennial fixture in narratives so an exhaustive list is impossible. Thus, inevitably it will be a list of notable examples which is just better suited to a section in the main article. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If consensus is to delete/redirect or rewrite from scratch, I can try to at least stub it based on sources found, with the old page preserved in history (SOFTDELETE). But if the MOS:POPCULT list of trivia is kept, I don't feel like wasting my time adding a fig leaf to the TVTROPEish OR content below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mayors of Marlborough, Massachusetts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Plunkett

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

Fails WP:NPOL: a municipal-level office holder of no great historical significance. Relies on one source, Google results reveal only that "Edward J. Plunkett" is a fairly common name. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Marlborough, Massachusetts, although also borderline on weak-keep (if other sources are found). I have checked the old newspaper archives and there isn't a great deal of WP:SIGCOV, perhaps surprising for someone who at the time was the youngest ever elected. There are numerous passing mentions, but not enough to build an article from. Even the single book citation offered (which I have now linked) is merely just a paragraph on half a page. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Bungle. I like the photo, but mayors, especially of small towns, generally aren't notable, and the article as written fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the fact that he was in office for only one year (according to the infobox) doesn't help his case. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 17:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This may well be true, but so it also seems to be true for others listed on the List of mayors of Marlborough, Massachusetts article (many of who also have their own article, which are either mostly or exclusively cited to that single book source). I am not suggesting an argument for WP:OTHERSTUFF and stand by my suggestion to redirect, though i'd also suggest a wider discussion around the other articles, some of which have existed over 10 years, may be worthwhile too. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect him to the list. Marlborough MA is not large enough to confer an automatic inclusion freebie on its mayors in the absence of significant reliable source coverage about their political significance — at the mayoral level of office, the notability test is not passed by minimally verifying that he existed, but by writing and sourcing a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his time in office had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what's on offer here. Bearcat (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting to List of mayors of Marlborough, Massachusetts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Marlborough, Massachusetts Nothing is present here that leads to this subject getting to WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Another recent mayor from this town had an Afd recently and that ended up being the result Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romeo Gadbois. User:Let'srun 13:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2023 Nashville mayoral election. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie O'Connell

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

Fails WP:NPOL: municipal-level office holder and candidate who has not received significant press coverage (one routine interview):

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
The Tennessean	Interview		✘ No
Ballotpedia		? No consensus at RSN	? Unknown
Election results			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Nashville mayoral election I'm not finding any significant coverage. Most of what I find is brief mentions within articles relating to the election as a whole. Redirecting seems appropriate for now, with no prejudice against recreating an article if he wins. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently fails GNG, WP:TOOSOON in the event he wins, will fail WP:NPOL if he loses. SportingFlyer T·C 17:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in future mayoral elections — the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. But this is doing absolutely nothing to establish that he would pass NPOL #2 as a Metro Councillor, either — at that level of office, the notability test is not passed by minimally verifying that he exists, but by writing and sourcing a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his time in office had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what's on offer here.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation after September 14 if he wins the election, but nothing here is already enough to already earn him an article a month in advance of the election. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting to 2023 Nashville mayoral election?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2023 Nashville mayoral election as suggested above. It's clear that at best, the article was created a bit WP:TOOSOON although maybe nominating for deletion should have waited a few weeks to see if the candidate would then pass WP:NPOL. I think a redirect serves well for two reasons; that recreation by reverting the RD can be done easily if they are elected (with suitable sourcing), and that they already seem reasonably well associated with the election that it's a useful redirect target regardless. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The main points of contention are whether the NYT coverage is significant and whether the TechCrunch article is independent. This is ultimately down to subjective judgment, and since all of the discussion is policy-based, we look to the numerical tally which is slightly in favor of keeping but not quite enough to declare a consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KumoSpace

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

This does not seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and is written like an advertisement- most of 'Workflow' section should be removed, and most of 'History' is PR speak, which leaves very little for an article. Qcne (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Relevant guideline is WP:ORGCRIT and none of the references meet it. The NYT piece is close but the company is not the main focus of the article. Everything else is routine coverage such as funding announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in accordance with WP:GNG standards, the page meets the notability criteria as it primarily discusses the software, rather than the company. Specifically, the sources discuss the software. The New York Times piece, while not entirely focused on the company, is rather huge and gives in-depth coverage of the software and its influence on the virtual office software industry. I found several books with good descriptions of the software and added one review in a new section. Furthermore, I've integrated several credible sources in other languages, such as Chinese from 36kr.com, as well as numerous academic papers that explore the software's impact on student studies, business workflows, and more. As such, the page meets the basic notability requirements and could be restructured to resemble a software-centric entry more closely. --BoraVoro (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article is not about the company or the software. It is about virtual meetings and discusses the company and software in context with several other companies. Neither the software or the company are the main focus of the article so it would not meet ORGCRIT. "Descriptions" of the software in other sources fall short as well. It would be the same as considering a company directory listing (Crunchbase, Bloomberg, etc.) for notability. Are you able to point out any specific references other than these you feel meet ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added 2 more sources to the page, a review from a book and some academia papers where Kumospace is the subject. I recognize that nuances around guidelines and what may or may not meet specific criteria can be tricky. I've tried my best to address the notability concerns, I believe a third-party evaluation will provide clarity. Thank you! BoraVoro (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with reservations. First of all, the very lengthy New York Times magazine piece does not make the company the focus but it does talk a lot about the company. The article is about why people need something like KumoSpace. Common sense says it counts. Read it for yourself.

There's a TechCrunch article about KumoSpace; our WP:RSNP note on TechCrunch warns about variability in the reliability of their articles: see WP:TECHCRUNCH. I read the article; it's by a named staff reporter and I judge it to be independent. Nominally, it's about raising money but primarily it's about KumoSpace and what they're doing.

There are citations to journal articles about using KumoSpace in the classroom -- I'm not sure how they fit into our WP:NCORP scheme.

My reservation is that by tech standards, this is a small company in a very big space; they raised $21 million in financing. The tech giants have more coins than that just in their sofas. A personal beef I have with WP:NCORP is that ignores size in favor of meeting some very specific citation requirements. We end up with articles about dive bars in Saskatoon because people wrote interesting profile pieces about them. We coverage of Fortune 500 companies because when they fire 1000 people, takeover a competitor or earn $1 billion, it's "routine." Ultimately my !vote is about the rules, not my personal preferences so KumoSpace is a keep.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the NYT article and TechCrunch article. I believe you are saying you have an issue with NCORP which is understandable as I often have an internal conflict with it myself (I think we raised the bar high to keep out spam and wound up keeping out some good companies as a result). Unfortunately, the guideline is what it is and would need to be changed before it can be applied as such (lower standards than currently written). Regardless, let's assume that the NYT and TechCrunch meet ORGCRIT. If that is the case, I don't feel that both together would be strong enough for NCORP. If two sources similar to these could meet NCORP, we could have thousands more articles on companies that otherwise would not qualify. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the NYT, along with other US and foreign articles, provides significant coverage of KumoSpace, illustrating its relevance among virtual meetings industry. It's notable for a software that academic references emphasize its impact in the educational sector. I'd rather strongly agree with the above arguments of notability and believe the article is more about a software. In this context, and given its diverse references, it meets the general notability criteria. --Emma so Bergst222 (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me specifically which "other US and foreign articles" meet the criteria spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CNMall41 Andre🚐 18:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is enough coverage to support notability in my opinion, the NYTimes article coverage is excessively discounted by CNMall41 and not trivial per A. B. Here is another source from MIT which I do not see discussed thus far: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/08/1035081/facebook-horizons-oculus-zoom-fatigue/. Yes, the subject is not the main focus and there is some primary material but again the coverage is not trivial. Plus there seems to be a surprising degree of international coverage which I have not really checked yet, but indicates there is more than enough to support inclusion of the article on Wikipedia. - Indefensible (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, the subject is not the main focus and there is some primary material" - Then how would it meet WP:ORGCRIT? --CNMall41 (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have to use our judgement rather than strictly follow imperfect guidelines blindly. - Indefensible (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is concerning. We use our judgment comparing guidelines to available sources to see if they meet those guidelines. We cannot simply vote contrary to those guidelines because we feel they are "imperfect." That is circumventing Wikipedia guidelines. WP:IDLI would apply here and should be avoided. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging your concern, however I stand by my comment. As I previously wrote in regards to a political article, having a single quote (for example) should not be enough to invalidate an entire article on the basis of being primary. This coverage from MIT's Tech Review is additional to NYTimes' article which is also discussed by others above (I am merely in agreement with A. B. upon reviewing it), and other sources. Plus the considerable foreign sources add support for notability. - Indefensible (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you are standing behind your comment to not follow a guideline you feel is imperfect? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am standing by my comments above, particularly the original review where I supported keeping the article. - Indefensible (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of how well the references available on this subject meet, or do not meet, the relevant guidelines such as WP:N and WP:CORP would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. It is notable that the Keep !voters above pretty much acknowledge that the sources don't meet NCORP. Most of the information discusses the "newness" of the VR experience and the software, there's no Independent Content about the company and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After making some research in line with WP:BEFORE, it’ s evident that Kumospace is primarily recognized as a software program and multiple sources treat it as such (quite often naming it as an alternative to Zoom). I also count as reliable sources the research scholarly papers from universities around the globe which explores/examines this soft, e.g. how Kumospace impacts Grade 9 students’ academic performance (published in the double-blind peer-reviewed American Journal of Education and Technology. As for me, it is important to keep in mind that as the article is not about the company only, but also about the software. Thus, it seems to meet the WP:GNG. I also slightly rearrange the page's structure. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're almost evenly split on consensus between delete and keep. Relisting for another go around
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to see how the NYT article could possibly be used to support any coverage-based criteria for evaluating N, given that it hardly has any information about KumoSpace, much less "directly and in detail". The TechCrunch article, on the other hand, is for the most part "Martin says", "Martin posits", "Martin stresses", "Martin argues". Martin being Brett Martin, co-founder and president of the company, it is unclear how we should consider it independent. E-Palli is not listed as a predatory publisher, but there are indications that suggest that it dubious. I am not convinced that any of its journals should be considered RS, and I am not aware of its inclusion in relevant indicies. In any case, despite being independent, it is most certainly also WP:PRIMARY, both of which are required in SIRS. I can't find a basis for lower standards for software as put forward by BoraVoro and Old-AgedKid (the WP:NSOFT essay notably directs us to WP:NPRODUCT for commercial software) and the general notability guideline is actually quite similar, if not quite so explicit about the required depth to be considered significant (understandably so, since the primary criteria of the SNGs were how it was originally formulated. I don't see an argument for retention that aligns with the relevant guidelines, so I will have to recommend a delete. (edit conflict) yeah probably my fault for taking so long but y'all could leave some of this stuff in OAFD for like a day or so, grumble grumble Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of substantial NYT coverage, a TechCrunch feature, and multiple other independent sources makes this a clear keep in my view. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's your problem right there. We don't combine sources for the purposes of meeting the criteria. We need multiple sources whereby *each* source meets *all* the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WilsonP NYC:, based on your limited participation on Wikipedia, I am wondering if you could expand on how NYT, TechCrunch, and (multiple) other sources meet WP:SIRS. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Techcrunch, in the form of actual bylined editorial articles (versus Crunchbase and so on) is a significant source of original reporting on technology companies and (despite many objections to the boosterish tone in this discussion and elsewhere) is usually considered the main source of news on technology companies. The feature there is significant, independent, reliable and secondary.

A major NYT Magazine feature obviously meets all four criteria, the NYT magazine is one if the most high profile sources in the English language. Thus the argument taking place here is if the subject's inclusion in this feature is a passing mention or a significant part of the article. My judgement is that it's significant, but it's certainly arguable.

The combination of those two, plus other credible citations, meets notability in my view. WilsonP NYC (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There seems to be confusion about SIRS. While TechCrunch is a reliable source, the one cited is a routine announcement of funding with churnalism. For New York Times, this is not about KumoSpace. It talks about it in briefly in context with virtual meetings so it fails SIRS. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'd prefer to keep it. I enjoyed the interesting discussion and do see the issues with "multiple reliable sources", and an argument that some non-fiction books describe the software. I also cannot say that the New York Times newspaper merely mentions it briefly. Their media coverage is comprehensive enough to write a short, neutral article about kumospace on Wikipedia, if to apply such a verification method. However, that's not my point. I was surprised to find out that kumospace is already a part of several university courses (Queen's University Belfast, Queen Mary University of London) on "Profile Building/Networking". Specifically, an entire session is dedicated to kumospace software, while Cambridge University uses kumospace for teaching its Networking course. This, in itself, speaks to its notability. Mozzcircuit (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bansharaj Sun

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

Despite playing 6 matches at professional level, I can't find any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I have searched ProQuest, Google and DDG but found nothing even close to being a decent source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, India, and Meghalaya. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of GNG-passing coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Techi Tatra

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

Despite his cameo appearance against Mohun Bagan in 2019, his career doesn't seem to have taken off and the article currently makes no attempt at demonstrating WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. An Indian source search gives us nothing more than database sources. I found some sources in Google relating to futsal and football, more than I thought to be fair, but nothing that addresses Tatra in detail. The Hindu mentions him once, same with Assam Tribune and Arunachal Times doesn't do any better. Those were the best WP:RS that I could find. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, India, and Arunachal Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of GNG-passing coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morabito (brand)

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

Do not believe this passes WP:NORG. No references, no third parrty coverage. Qcne (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The versions in history are borderline G11. Even if closed under WP:NOQUORUM, it should not be restored on request. There does not appear to be any content not taken from the company about page, which defaults to Japanese for some reason, though it does seem to be paraphrased enough to avoid a G12. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Olympic female artistic gymnasts for Great Britain. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thomas-Neale

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

No significant coverage is present for this subject to meet WP:GNG, and also fails WP:NGYMNAST. Let'srun (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, and England. Let'srun (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems she won several national championships for Great Britain, see here. I would expect there to be SIGCOV for this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11 - I found these two mentions so far - 1, 2 and multiple results in the British Newspaper Archive here. Due to her name being so common, maneuvering the search is tough. I have to do more research, but it does seem like her coach Walter Maidment likely is notable. KatoKungLee (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Olympic female artistic gymnasts for Great Britain Coverage in databases is not considered sufficient to show WP notability. In 1952 she finished 112th out of 134 in the women's all around and in 1960 she finished 108th out of 124. Since Olympic participation is no longer enough to show notability, we need more coverage. Failing to break the top 100 is not enough. Doesn't seem to merit her own article but a redirect seems fine to me. Papaursa (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting the article to List of Olympic female artistic gymnasts for Great Britain?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. BilledMammal (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Mand

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

I was not able to discover any sources apart from the India Today issues published following the event. The India Today articles were reporting the news about the military operation. Following that, there's virtually no coverage. No sources to establish WP:GNG nor WP:NEVENT — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to develop. User4edits (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Develop using...? — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To expand and explain on this, we draftify articles which have the potential to be notable. This event occurred some 35+ years ago. If the scholarship did not appear in 3 decades, the probability in the next 6 months is miniscule. This article does not have the potential. See below. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think it's a great article, but the subject exists, is referenced in RSs, has been discussed in those RSs outside the immediate timeframe, and is the subject of a film. That easily clears the hurdles of SIGCOV specifically and GNG overall. It needs a rewrite, not a deletion. My main trouble with the article as it exists is the spamming with {{cn}}. Adding a tag at every full stop (there are five cn tags in the first six sentences, in addition to five inline citations) is excessive and unhelp. It prevents the reader from understanding what value may be in the article and comes off as petulant. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
has been discussed in those RSs outside the immediate timeframe and subject of a film - please provide evidence to establish notability — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The film is discussed in the Hindustan Times. The event is discussed in IT, two books and a Defence Review cited in the article itself. A quick search shows at least seven more sources that mention it explicitly and many, many more that reference the event without the name specified. Are you claiming that this didn't happen, or are you unsatisfied with the citations? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to ref #10 Hindustan Times [11], that citation failed to verify. So, please provide evidence that this Operation is the subject of a film. The Defence Review journal one single sentence. Have you found sources that talk about the Operation in detail apart from "mention[ing] it" with or without naming it explicitly?

This is a deletion discussion whether an article is warranted given the topic has notability. Please provide sources that address the topic and prove it has significant coverage per WP:GNG or atleast that it could be considered under WP:NEVENT. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 16:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is referenced in two books (cited in the article), several India Today articles (cited), and a Defence Review (cited; one sentence is still a reference). I found references to more with a rudimentary Google search, showing that someone who cares can improve the article over time. It's not my field of expertise and I'm just not interested in modern secular terrorism, so I'll leave research and improvements to editors who focus on it. As I stated above, I believe that satisfies SIGCOV and GNG. You don't agree, and that's fine. That's why we discuss AfD and don't leave it up to the whims of individual editors. I'll stick with 'Keep', thanks. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go one by one
The subject is referenced in two books (cited in the article) - false

India Today articles (cited) - usual news reports from when the event happened, no coverage thereafter

Defence Review (cited; one sentence is still a reference) - one sentence doesn't cut it to WP:GNG, please read what "significant coverage" means

I found references to more with a rudimentary Google search - I found nothing that satisfies what we consider a reliable source is. Sources like sikhiwiki.org are user-generated and are unreliable.

For the sake of repeating myself, cites #2 (Link news magazine), #3 #7 #8 (India Today news magazine), #6 (Defence Review - single sentence) - verifies the content. The Line and India Today are covering the news. Wikipedia is not a newspaper - we don't create articles for every other event.

From WP:EVENTCRIT - #1 there is no enduring historical significance; #2 widespread (national or international) impact ... very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards - nope; #3 lesser coverage or more limited scope - let's see; #4 let's assume it's the case #3 here.

For the WP:EVENTCRIT #3 lesser coverage or more limited scope -
WP:LASTING - event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance - no evidence that this Operation is a precedent or catalyst for sth else of lasting sig.

WP:GEOSCOPE - Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group - let's see
Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article (emphasis mine) - the news coverage is the sole basis for this article. Outside of this coverage, there is no evidence of published material.

events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group - no evidence that this has such long-term impact, even in the Mand area where the Operation took place.

So, no WP:GEOSCOPE

WP:INDEPTH - event must receive significant or in-depth coverage - Ref #3 India Today comes close to that. However, it is reporting the event as part of a wide event - Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally - I'll be cautious (but won't reject) here to use this India Today report to confer notability.

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE - Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle - no coverage/scholarship beyond the event cycle.

WP:DIVERSE - Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable - no evidence of such coverage. Also - A series of news reports by a single newspaper or news channel would not be sufficient basis for an article - this is for the 3 citations of India Today. No evidence of significant coverage from multiple sources.

An alternative to deletion, if one wants to argue that the search term would be useful, would be to merge and redirect to Tat Khalsa or Avtar Singh Brahma.

Online/Offline sources are acceptable but not an argument that "I found references to more with a rudimentary Google search" doesn't cut it - especially when that particular notion is challenged. Notability requires verifiable evidence WP:NRV - and nothing of such sort was provided. WP:N's second line reads: Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.

In conclusion, there is no evidence that an article is warranted on Wikipedia. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chhangte Lalhriatpuia

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

His 3 professional games lasting 37 mins before disappearing would probably be enough to survive a PROD but I don't see enough for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC, which are the only valid guidelines at AfD. An Indian source search yielded only database sources and Google gives me the same plus a few Football Manager sites. The best I can find in WP:RS is Football Counter, which only mentions him once. Likewise with the Football Counter source already cited. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, India, and Mizoram. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Irving Place Capital. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Howard

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

Fails WP:BIO Only reference is from a conference webpage from his school. Purpose of this article is to just act as a resume which is in breach of WP:NOTCV. Article creator seems to be WP:SPA to advertise Yale Alumni. Imcdc Contact 09:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Finance. Imcdc Contact 09:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Irving Place Capital. He doesn't have any independent coverage.Upper Deck Guy (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Constance McKee

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Only one reference which is from the non-notable company she is CEO of and even that is not in-depth. Article creator seems to be WP:SPA to advertise Yale Alumni. Imcdc Contact 09:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Imcdc Contact 09:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NBIO. Only other sources I see are a similar profile from a seemingly related company and a few database profiles that just regurgitations of the others. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 15:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable subject. No coverage exists. Upper Deck Guy (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ranji H. Nagaswami

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

Article is basically WP:NOTCV. Fails WP:BIO as references are just press releases and an interview. Article creator seems to be WP:SPA to advertise Yale Alumni. Imcdc Contact 09:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Finance. Imcdc Contact 09:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, professional profile, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. —siro χ o 09:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject seems borderline notable but no substantial independent editorial media coverage is here. If it exists it should be added and resubmitted. WilsonP NYC (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable subject. Very little coverage exists. Upper Deck Guy (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Strashnov

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

Potential violation of Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons (BLP) policy: disastrous lack of reliable sources and promotional content. LusikSnusik (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BLP accusations are without merit: I hardly see the list of positions held to be "promotional". "disastrous lack" is due to DGAF; ruwiki has plenty of refs and the nom must be trout-slapped for lack of due diligence before nomination.- Altenmann >talk 01:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous. Trout-slapping a contributor for proposing an article that's based on one (one!) single source! I mean, even now, one month after the proposal, we still have practically nothing. Not even our slapping hopeful has proffered supporting sources here, in the English-language Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does read like a PROMO now, this [12] talks about him, I'm unsure if it's a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for my education, please explain which elements of promotion you see in the article? I see nothin that fails our guideline WP:PROMO. - Altenmann >talk 16:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Having the article in wikipedia is used to enhance search engines and search listings, which helps the individual. Higher search rankings. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was created by a kamikaze account that's being permanently blocked since 2014 and curated mainly by an ISP that's under a 2-year block. The promotional intent of this "article" is evident not in the language used but from that it offers: extremely trivial bio-details ("led the Russian division of Electrolux Home Appliances"), a video of our subject visiting a local office (!), etc. Typical of efforts to create notability where there's only the usual everyday stuff. -The Gnome (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the wealth of reliable refs in ru:Страшнов, Дмитрий Евгеньевич. It's easy to run them through a translator now; many browsers even have this built-in. WP:BEFORE now says to check other wikipedias before sending an article to AfD.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is yet just another businessman, trivially and distinctly non-notable. Yet, he has an article in Wikipedia puffed up with promotional stuff, as well, e.g. a video from some routine visit some time some where. All arguments supporting inclusion have so far been variations of "he is notable in the Russian Wikipedia", "it's useful to have it", "he is important", or just plain ol' "he is notable"! Wouldn't their contributors' time be better spent if used to post up sources supporting the claim to notability?

Is this some aspiration of fame getting a kick-start through a Wikipedia bio? The work of zealous acolytes? Or, my personal vote, the work of good-faith editors seeing notability where it's absent? In any case, there is little of substance out there. Wikipedia is not a list of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A specific analysis of the references available about this individual would be very helpful. A handwave at other language projects is not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple sources from TASS, RIA Novosty, Rossiskaya Gazeta and others specifically about this subject in the ru.wiki article, providing in depth and sustained coverage. Mccapra (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking articles from Wikipedias in other languages to support notability, expressly does not offer much support in AfD discussions, Mccapra. -The Gnome (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m afraid you’ve missed the point about WP:OTHERLANGS. That essay states correctly that the mere existence of cognate articles in other language wikis does not demonstrate notability. I’m not doing that. I’m not invoking the ru.wiki article to claim anything. I’m saying that the Russian sources used in the ru.wiki article are good quality. If they were crap UGC sites, blogs or churnalism I’d vote delete, but they are top tier Russian language news sources. Nothing in the essay you pointed to suggests that we should not evaluate the sources used in another language wiki article. Mccapra (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you do not realize that simply asserting the subject is notable on the basis that the respective article in another-language Wikipedia "has sources" is the same as basing your argument on the fact that "the article exists in another-language Wikipedia"! We need the sources you, for one, assess as being of "good quality" here, in the lemma of English-language Wikipedia. That's what needs to be done. Mere declarations of notability are DOA in AfDs. -The Gnome (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Igbo-Igala Wars

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

Contested Draftification, moved back to main space immediately with no edits. Without the prior move to draft I would have draftified this as not ready, insufficient sourcing 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep I see there's nothing on the talk page. What was wrong with this article in the first place such that it was draftified? EDIT: Okay, I went in and formatted the references so we can see what we're dealing with. One book, one questionable source, but mostly serious journal articles. They looked paywalled, so I didn't try to get in there. Due to the vagueness of the titles, I'd have to read the whole article each time to find out if it supports the information cited, but if the claim is "there are no reliable sources," then we've dispelled it, and if it's "the sources are reliable but they don't support the material for which they're cited," then someone does have to go in and check. Has anyone done so already, maybe in the previous discussion in which the article was draftified? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these sources look like they could be there for decoration, but a two-second Google search did show that sources that address the topic directly do exist: [13] Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me fix the formatting I appreciate it. Everything I added was cited and I asked the person who moved it to the draft to tell me what was wrong or how I should approach the problem of sources, clearly indicating that I would move it back if there was no response. The nairapen source was just to show that the community spoke an Igala dialect and was not used for any serious topic, if that is the decoration source you're referring to. Ddddemonstrate (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I was referring to. The Nairapen source was accessible. I recently edited an article in which there were lots of sources posted. One by one, I got the books out of the library and looked up the articles, and I found out that those books and articles did not say the things they were in the Wikipedia article to support. Either the information just wasn't in there or, in one case, the source said "that idea's not true/questionable." I say they were there for decoration because they made the article look credible, but they didn't actually provide support.

Most of the sources in this article on the war are paywalled, which means it's hard for other Wikieditors to go in and confirm that they say what they say. Most Wikipedia articles have a mix of web-accessible and paywalled/paper sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
African history isn't that widely documented to where I can find articles that aren't on websites like JSTOR or other paywalled sources, which is why I got my sources from JSTOR. For the first source the first page is all you need as I couldn't access the full article either. For the JSTOR sources all you have to do is make an account and you can read about 100 articles a month, you shouldn't have to pay for them. Ddddemonstrate (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there are plenty of sources actually Ddddemonstrate (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meet me on the article's talk page and we can discuss improvement further. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Need a better reason to draftify or delete. Srnec (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I fail to find any critical problems with this article. It needs improvement, but that used to be the Second Rule of Wikipedia. For that improvement, there seem to be a lot of perfectly respectable sources based on a cursory reading of a dozen synopses in gScholar. That said, the sourcing that already exists is acceptable for an article of this size and scope. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though this needs improvement, it is a pretty established article with several reliable sources. I do not see a good reason to delete it. HarukaAmaranth (話) 01:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Appears to meet WP:NMUSIC but not WP:GNG, but no agreement here on whether that is sufficient. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BabyJake

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

Does not appear to be notable at this time. Has an AllMusic bio written by one of their regular critics which is good, but otherwise everything I see is either interviews or likely unreliable sources (including Earmilk; my thoughts on that here). That the artist was signed to one of the world's biggest record labels would explain the amount of available coverage/promo, but that his new album was self-released and has received zero coverage makes me think that previous material was all bought by the label and doesn't ultimately mean much (and again, appears to be mostly unusable). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Florida. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the fact that he was signed to Republic Records establish his notability as an artist in itself? Whether or not his most recent release(s) are notable enough (I'll admit, they aren't culturally relevant enough to have their own pages), the page is on the artist, who has almost 2 million monthly Spotify listeners and 143 million on a single song. I don't feel articles should be deleted/moved out of the mainspace based on the subject's "current" relevance, when they have been relevant in the past and will likely be relevant in the future. There are hundreds of "one-hit wonders" that quality for their own Wikipedia pages, so I don't see why this one is any different. SaltieChips (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. ENWP doesn't tend to see much in Spotify listeners so I'm not sure how valuable a metric that is here. And there's also the problem which I've seen brought up before where those numbers aren't the most reliable because companies can pay for bots that stream the song automatically so the numbers are artificially inflated.

2. In my opinion, being signed to a major label shouldn't automatically qualify an artist as notable. Notability being able to be bought by big companies like that doesn't feel like the spirit of Wikipedia to me. I know WP:NMUSIC#5 exists and a lot of editors still stand by it, but frankly I've never cared for that argument, especially when made alone.

3. Other than the streaming numbers, I don't see anything that qualifies this song as a hit. It doesn't appear to have charted anywhere and the coverage one would expect for a hit song hasn't materialized. By some measures it would certainly be considered a hit, but not by the ones Wikipedia prefers.

4. My point about the recent releases was meant to demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED. There was some (unreliable and likely artificially gained) hype around one or two prior releases, but that it didn't continue more recently and looks unlikely to start up again suggests to me that it was temporary, and that would constitute a notability fail.

5. For what it's worth, I don't see a reason why moving this out of mainspace would be worth anything. I don't see anything that would help expand this further, nor do I foresee that material coming about in the future. If you have any redirect targets to suggest then I'm open to hearing and likely to support them, but I would not support draftification. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject meets WP:SINGER#C5 (corrected) with two releases on Republic Records and additional releases on Universal Music Enterprises. Notability criteria is met, thus notability is presumed. There is no concern for WP:V given we have some sources to verify things. If concerns remain, please remove unverifiable information that is likely to be challenged, per WP:BLP. —siro χ o 04:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SINGER#C6 is about musical ensembles. The article is about a musician. -The Gnome (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I meant WP:SINGER#C5 I will correct my above !voting comment to reflect that, though it started incorrect as you've noted. —siro χ o 16:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be deleted. Coltshark (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with @Siroxo. SaltieChips (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, the nominator makes a pretty strong argument but participants here are advocating Keeping this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NMUSICIAN: "One of the most prominent representatives of a notable style"? "Won or was nominated for a major music award"? "Had a single or album on a country's national music chart"? "Had a record certified gold or higher"? "Has won in a major music competition"? Nope. Wikipedia is not a music directory. -The Gnome (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the source material about this subject, rather than "is a..." type arguments, would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See comments and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Jogi. ‎ Materialscientist (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Rahul Jogi

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

Deleted multiple times at Rahul Jogi, राहुल जोगी and Rahul jogi due to failing WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Having reviewed the sources in this current version, I can't see that any of the previous problems have been addressed at all, not to mention that 'The Rahul Jogi' is not an appropriate title and only seems to have been used to bypass the WP:SALT applied. I also can't see any real improvement from the draftified version at Draft:Rahul Jogi Rahul Jogi other than the addition of sources that fail to confer notability. I'm not convinced that Kabir Kranti is WP:RS and I seem to remember this being in the article before and it didn't persuade anyone at the time that Jogi is notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Seems like a possible G4 per nom. Also, it's a professional profile, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Even if notability is established, this is not an encyclopedia article and we should delete for TNT. —siro χ o 09:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination ‘Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)’[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Gray

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

Charlie Gray

Baseball player for whom the only sources are database entries. The Heymann criterion is to provide two reliable sources. Since he is said to have died at the age of 36, there is likely to be an obituary, but it isn't one of the sources here.

Draftify as nominator. Provide six months to find sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Pennsylvania. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded a bit. Found SIGCOV in two book sources, including the "Rank and File" book published by one of the leading baseball historians, David Nemec. Cbl62 (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has enough sourcing to qualify for GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the expansion by Cbl62. This would make a great DYK hook in my opinion: ... that six-fingered Charlie Gray started at pitcher in Major League Baseball? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated at Template:Did you know nominations/Charlie Gray. Cbl62 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. Rlendog (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth P. Green

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

Not notable. Unable to find out much about him, apart from a Guardian story saying that he offered to pay scientists to write articles questioning global warning when he worked at the American Enterprise Institute. I think that's BLP1E, and that his career as an advocate and writer doesn't show notability. There are some hits on Google Scholar, but https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep33348.pdf is from a Fraser Institute publication rather than a mainstream independent peer-reviewed journal. It has some citations, but possibly not enough. See also the previous AfD. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Environment, Canada, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nom's search for notability is not promising. Looking at the article itself, it's very promotional. It encompasses a professional profile, and beyond that, relays way too much of the subject's own voice. —siro χ o 09:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On reconsideration, I withdraw my request for re-instatement. Feel free to leave the page in deleted status. No need to waste more time on the issue. 24.121.19.234 (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, however suggest letting this run despite the IP/subject's change of heart so we have consensus v. a PROD to fall back on. Star Mississippi 02:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll !vote keep on climate change deniers with reasonable claim of notability, but that seems to be absent here. Little sign of WP:NPROF, and while there are one or two passing mentions in news articles, I'm not seeing anything approaching GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass GNG or NPROF. --hroest 18:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Winnipeg–Churchill train. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsuch station

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

Non-notable flag stop (literally just a post next to the tracks) fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being redirects to a list or some other appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a list or another suitable page would be the best idea indeed.TH1980 (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train: each train station is not individually notable, although the whole train line is. Several other stations on this line have already been WP:BLARed to that article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Winnipeg–Churchill train. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dunlop station (Manitoba)

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

Non-notable flag stop (literally just a post next to the tracks) fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation. –dlthewave ☎ 04:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being redirects to a list or some other appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would indeed be the best solution, given the stop's minor notability in and of itself.TH1980 (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train: each train station is not individually notable, although the whole train line is. Several other stations on this line have already been WP:BLARed to that article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Winnipeg–Churchill train. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dyce station (Manitoba)

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

Non-notable flag stop (literally just a post next to the tracks) fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation. –dlthewave ☎ 04:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlthewave: Can you consider bundling these? Easier to get them all done with Jumpytoo Talk 04:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't find out anything about the station, but I expect that it was once more than just a signpost. Here are a few resources that may include significant coverage of individual railway stations in Manitoba: https://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/hrb/internal_reports/pdfs/railway_stations_full.pdf https://yourrailwaypictures.com/trainstations/manitoba-train-stations/ https://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/business/cnr.shtml Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being redirects to a list or some other appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the above would be the best choice.TH1980 (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train: each train station is not individually notable, although the whole train line is. Several other stations on this line have already been WP:BLARed to that article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Winnipeg–Churchill train. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hockin station

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

Non-notable flag stop (literally just a post next to the tracks) fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation. –dlthewave ☎ 04:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being redirects to a list or some other appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train: each train station is not individually notable, although the whole train line is. Several other stations on this line have already been WP:BLARed to that article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Winnipeg–Churchill train. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kettle Rapids station

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

Non-notable flag stop (literally just a post next to the tracks) fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation. –dlthewave ☎ 04:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being redirects to a list or some other appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the above would be the best for this page.TH1980 (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train: each train station is not individually notable, although the whole train line is. Several other stations on this line have already been WP:BLARed to that article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Winnipeg–Churchill train. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

La Perouse station

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

Non-notable flag stop (literally just a post next to the tracks) fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation. –dlthewave ☎ 04:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being redirects to a list or some other appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the above is the best idea for this page.TH1980 (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train: each train station is not individually notable, although the whole train line is. Several other stations on this line have already been WP:BLARed to that article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Winnipeg–Churchill train. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leven station (Manitoba)

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

Non-notable flag stop (literally just a post next to the tracks) fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation. –dlthewave ☎ 04:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being redirects to a list or some other appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would be the best, most constructive choice.TH1980 (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train: each train station is not individually notable, although the whole train line is. Several other stations on this line have already been WP:BLARed to that article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Winnipeg–Churchill train. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luke station

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

Non-notable flag stop (literally just a post next to the tracks) fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation. –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being redirects to a list or some other appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would be the wisest choice.TH1980 (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train: each train station is not individually notable, although the whole train line is. Several other stations on this line have already been WP:BLARed to that article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Winnipeg–Churchill train. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lyddal station

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

Non-notable flag stop (literally just a post next to the tracks) fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation. –dlthewave ☎ 04:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being redirects to a list or some other appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train: each train station is not individually notable, although the whole train line is. Several other stations on this line have already been WP:BLARed to that article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Winnipeg–Churchill train. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgar station

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

Non-notable flag stop (literally just a post next to the tracks) fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 03:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation. –dlthewave ☎ 03:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being redirects to a list or some other appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train: each train station is not individually notable, although the whole train line is. Several other stations on this line have already been WP:BLARed to that article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Winnipeg–Churchill train. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bylot station

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

Non-notable flag stop (literally just a post next to the tracks) fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 03:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation. –dlthewave ☎ 03:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being redirects to a list or some other appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train: each train station is not individually notable, although the whole train line is. Several other stations on this line have already been WP:BLARed to that article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madhukar (author)

AfDs for this article:

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

Reads like an ad in many places, seems to fail WP:NBIO. Not certain there's an article in here which can be saved. Searching for the author's name turns up zero independent sources, unless I've missed something. Probably issues with COI (see the rights information of the image in the article in context of the promotional nature of the article) though possibly that's a reach? Nonetheless, doesn't seem to belong here. Warrenmck (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Spirituality. Warrenmck (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, after nominating this I realized the results of the prior discussion was delete but the article wasn’t deleted. This can be CSDed, I believe. Warrenmck (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added G6. But also delete WP:NOTCV —siro χ o 10:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For a supposedly notable German-born author, there is no biographical information regarding his name previous to "Madhukar", although the German language sources listed in the article are inaccessible or opaque. Could this "Madhukar" be Berthold Madhukar Thompson? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to my own above question: no. According to a cult education forum, the deceased German spiritual teacher Berthold Madhukar Thompson who went by the name "Madhukar" is sometimes mistaken for another (living?) German spiritual teacher Bernd Jürgen Merkle who goes by the name "Madhukar". And blogs about him are highly critical. In any event, the subject of our article clearly does not pass WP:NBIO, so delete. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator with no arguments in favor of deletion (CSK1). (non-admin closure) Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal System Error

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet GNG or WP:NBOOK. Most sources in the article are by the author of the book. Only the New Yorker review ([14]) seems significant and independent. The CSO Online article ([15]) is about (some of) the same events Fatal System Error covers, but doesn't mention Fatal System Error at all and was written five years before the book was published (it also is invalid as a citation for what it's claiming since the article mentions Lyon and Maksakov only; note for anyone reviewing this source that the original is offline and the archive is across 20 independent short pages). The best other source I was able to find was a 2013 TechCrunch article about Lyon ([16]) which only mentions the book in passing.

All in all I don't see enough independent coverage of the book here to build an encyclopedia article out of. It may be appropriate to redirect this to Barrett Lyon, the subject of the book, as an alternative to deletion (if this is done the incoming redirect from Joseph Menn, the author of the book, should be deleted, not retargeted). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete.

Previous discussions: 2009-10 (closed as ✗ delete)

Logs: 2010-10 move to → Fatal System Error (book) ← 2009-10 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This should meet WP:NBOOK. In addition to the above, 173 word review in The Guardian [17], and via ProQuest I see a couple trade journal reviews:
1. Ellen Messmer in Network World [18]. 1500+ words, published less than a week prior to book publication (i.e they had a preview copy). Should remain reliable and independent.
2. Curtis Verschoor in Internal Auditing [19], a shorter ~400 word review released a few months after the book. Almost certainly independent, should be reliable.

—siro χ o 05:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw based on the sources Siroxo found above, which are enough to bring this up to significant coverage. I'm not actually sure how I missed those in my initial search here, and a bit embarrassed that I didn't find them. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ethereal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethereality

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. I can't find any in-depth coverage or reviews about this album in reliable and independent sources. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 02:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 02:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Ethereality to Ethereal and Ethereality (album) to Winter (indie rock band): Found no additional coverage. Not notable enough to be PTOPIC for the current title. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the redirect proposal involves an article not originally included in this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. No consensus on whether or not there should be a Redirect. That can be discussed or be BOLD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Countrycore

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

non-existent genre FMSky (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google this term, you will see it is in use. Plenty of YouTube hits on my Google Search. When you do search, however, results for Cottagecore (which is also referred to as countrycore apparently) also appear, mixed in with the countrycore music results. If this is not a viable article, then I suggest redirecting this somewhere, whether it be to country rock, heavy metal, or cowpunk, as this term is used to describe a music genre. How it's described is now up in the air as this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RUgJ6XkDhE uses the hashtag Metalcore, suggesting countrycore may have a metalcore influence apparently.

Then there's this: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Music_Sound/kXyFAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Countrycore%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT396&printsec=frontcover

It states countrycore may be in use, but without a clear meaning. It also lists other stuff like gospelcore, discocore (this would probably be used, alongside dancecore, to refer to hardcore punk influenced dance-punk imo) celticore, indiecore (which does currently redirect to mathcore), etc. Some of those terms besides indiecore exist as redirects on here.

Hopefully somebody can help out here. Moline1 (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Terrible sourcing, for instance The New York Times piece doesn't even have the four letters "core" in it, let alone "countrycore". The Metal Talk article is not even signed, so we have no idea whether the anonymous author has expertise in this topic. I'm not seeing any strong indication from Google searches that this is a topic. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Could this be redirected perhaps? If there's enough info to show this term is in use, but not enough for an article, we could redirect it to a page such as country rock, cowpunk, heavy metal, or hardcore punk. Of course, let's let some other users chime in first to determine whether a redirect would even be suitable for this article. If a redirect is not supported, then I'll change to Delete. Moline1 (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be a redirect, unless it's something minor like an alternate name/spelling of something (it's not) you'd need a reliable source that very directly verifies and connects the term "countrycore" to any of your proposed redirect targets. Without that, the content in the article would would fail WP:V and WP:OR, and be removed. And without any mention in the article, redirects are just deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman Television Channel

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

Page for a fictitious television channel. The page itself is a copy of the Chapman Entertainment page with the dates and years changed. The page was created by an IP editor in 2020 and i'm surprised such a thing hasn't been taken down. Luigitehplumber (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete suggested I don't see that SPEEDY has been tried, but it's definitely an article from a fantasy TV vandal, and that it should've been deleted in draftspace. I'm not going to apply the SD tag myself, but if someone else would like to, I'd support it. Nate • (chatter) 16:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It appears the only reason this ended up in mainspace to start with is because that IP editor created it in the talk namespace, and it was moved by another editor (presumably in good faith). Had it been created in draftspace as IPs are supposed to do, it likely wouldn't have been moved by any legitimate editor (and certainly not as an AfC submission). I do concur with MrSchimpf that G3 may well apply here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the sleuthing above. Fictional topics should be speedy deleted. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Malta women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kayleigh Chetcuti

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

Redirect to List of Malta women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least four caps for the Malta women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Malta. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' as above. Giant Snowman 18:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nomination - lack of GNG-passing coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Rodgers

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

Does not pass any notability guidelines, including WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. Let'srun (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Kentucky. Let'srun (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Borrego

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

The subject has earned at least four caps for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A quick search on google, did give me three results [20] [21] [22], but they are only brief mentions for this person in question. HawkAussie (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of GNG-passing coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Ellington

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMODEL. Let'srun (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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