Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 09	April 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Lazarevic

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

This thing is so promotional we need to start over. This would have been deleted in 2013 if the PROD tag wasn't removed. Also, ALL the sources portray the person in question in considerable good standing. Sounds like a resume posted on WP. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 23:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 23:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Inadequate sourcing as it is unreliable and not independent. LinkedIn account? Very much reads like a resume, WP:ADMASQ. Deletion seems premature but I would see the merit there as well. NiklausGerard (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftification is only a reasonable choice when there is some expectation that someone will improve it and resubmit it as an article. For an article that is still in the state it is after a 2007 creation, I don't think that expectation is reasonable. If you want to do that yourself, do it now. If you think someone else will do it, who? Without that expectation, it is just a hypocritical way of saying "delete six months from now". If you think it should be deleted, why not now, and why not say so explicitly? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was under the impression that deletion was meant to be a last-resort and to allow opportunity for an article to be improved upon. I hadn’t considered the timeline as the indication that I should have. You are correct. NiklausGerard (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, this seems like a notable subject with several papers that have 1000+ citations (even though in a *very* high citation field) and further achievements, but the current article is not usable. --hroest 17:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Revert The article back to this version from January 2021 [1] which is much better written. The subject appears to be notable and passes WP:NPROF, and most of the over the top promotional cruft has been recently added. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just did that! Thanks! Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 03:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCV. Independently of the promotional-tone issue (which was easily resolved), doesn't look like there's any independent source about this guy, and the whole of the content of the article is pretty much like a verbose CV. An average joe with an average job, who seems too WP:ROTM to warrant an article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Attribution is required, so I have moved the page to Draft:Kshanikam (2022 Malayalam film) and redirected it to Draft:Kshanikam. ✗plicit 12:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kshanikam (2022 Malayalam film)

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

Does not meet WP:NF, lacking significant coverage by independent sources, all coverage is routine coverage of cast announcements and marketing material, draftification is best as the film may receive coverage after release BOVINEBOY2008 10:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Kshanikam is upcoming malayalam film. and this film announced megastar Mammootty. and this is genuine page. after release this film publishing lots of refernces. kindly please remove this deletion box. Ssvlogs369 (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ per nom. WP:TOOSOON for future film which lacks significant coverage to meet NFF. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since there's already a draft as pointed below. No objections if a merge is carried out but there isn't much content here -- Ab207 (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: There is a working draft on this topic at Draft:Kshanikam that has been rejected from publication stating the same issues I addressed in the AfD. Should the consensus be to draftify, content should be merged there instead of creating a second working draft. BOVINEBOY2008 18:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DRAFT and rationale for its rejected move into mainspace at this time, at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Kshanikam&oldid=1079988507 Martinp (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YSI 2300 STAT PLUS Glucose and Lactate Analyzer

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

Unconvinced from references that this is notable to the extent that it meets the guidelines at WP:PRODUCT standalone. It might be worth taking parts of this and incorporating this into the company's article, but not enough thats usable to consider an immediate merge in my opinion. Mike1901 (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Medicine. Bsoyka (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The YSI 2300 analyzer was the de facto reference standard for glucose (and glucometer) readings in the US (and thus probably abroad) for the past 30-40 years. When they announced its discontinuation, a conference with 60 attendees was held to determine a successor. It is notable for being the reference standard due to its widespread use and history, rather than due to a regulatory requirement. The glucometer reading space is quite crowded and its notable for having remained the standard until its literal discontinuation. GobsPint (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Xylem Inc.#YSI. See WP:PRODUCT for rationale. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to this from WP:PRODUCT
If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy.
— rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kusal Maduranga

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

Non-notable actor, fail of WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. nearlyevil 665 21:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 21:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kusal Maduranga won the Raigam Tele'es Most Popular Actor Award in 2022. Media attention is lacking compared to the previous years due to the focus on country's economic situation. Haritha (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References added for WP:GNG and WP:NACTO. Haritha (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please consider recent sourcing additions to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the additional material, including a significant national award, which has been added to the article by Haritha. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Majda Grbac

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

Failed to find sources describing her outside of her single award win (best actress at Pula Film Festival, which I wouldn't consider notable). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography has her covered specifically at https://filmska.lzmk.hr/natuknica.aspx?id=2025 --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a ~~multiple~~ award winning actor. CT55555 (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CT55555, are the awards notable? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*::I don't know. But I think she is, which is the key thing here. CT55555 (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot derive notability by winning non-notable awards, in my opinion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's the two sources that I added to the article that form the basis of my opinion that she is notable. CT55555 (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update, the award seems notable Golden Arena for Best Actor. CT55555 (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most sources are in I assume Slovenian, in GNews. She gets one hit in Gscholar, again in Slovenian? Would need a native language speaker to review them for notablility. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Euphraeus

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

Nominating for deletion due to limited coverage in secondary sources - the philosopher here appears to be a name mentioned in Demosthenes. Secondary source in the article only mentions the person by name but says little about them - car chasm (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Greece. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For information, this is the secondary source that I cited when contesting WP:PROD deletion. It was only the first book that I looked at. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is loads more secondary coverage in the introduction to ISBN 3515083960, here, published by Franz Steiner Verlag and the second book that I looked at. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The second source does have more in-depth coverage, but I still think the philosopher is on the fence in terms of notability and should be discussed so I'm not going to early-close the AfD. The sources I found when I searched were more like the first one, which I do not believe qualifies based on the description and examples in WP:SIGCOV. - car chasm (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable, as a figure involved in important historical events, mentioned and chronicled by notable writers. There is an argument that anyone from classical antiquity whose name has survived to the present day is notable; I wouldn't go so far as to say that they all deserve their own articles, but they can certainly populate lists and be mentioned in connection with notable people and events that do have articles. Here we have a figure whom several scholars, both from antiquity and modern times, have written about, which gives him a presumptive notability—but even if we doubt that for a moment, it would be difficult to find what is said about the subject in one article if it had to be merged into another, or split between all of the sources who discuss him. Is he even important enough to be mentioned in those articles? This question has nothing to do with notability—he may be perfectly notable, but not relevant enough to be mentioned in the biographies of every person whose life he touched or who wrote about him. It seems like this article is the only logical place to gather what is said about him. So both because his contributions to the times in which he lived and the various scholars, past and present, who have something to say about him, seem to indicate a degree of notability, and because it makes no sense to scatter the contents of this article among several others to which the subject is at best tangentially relevant, this article should be kept. P Aculeius (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same reason P Aculeius gave. Teishin (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep P Aculeius has said it better than I could have. Atchom (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ariakon SIM-5

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

I'm unable to locate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. An online search turns up a few blog and forum posts, but nothing that would meet WP:GNG. AfD'd because this was already WP:PROD'd in 2008. Ljleppan (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Ljleppan (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. If the article had more sources then I would have said keep but the article does have some sources and is barely notable.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👻👻) 05:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian MacAulay

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

this is an xwiki autobio (as per the creators plwiki userpage) and while that doesn't automatically mean deletion, it's important to note the heavy reliance on non-existent sources and primary sources. I fail to see how this person is notable whether by GNG or any other criteria. CUPIDICAE💕 23:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't hold a position (e.g.bishop) where we would presume notability, and nothing in the article suggests notability in this particular case. St Anselm (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- He is (or was) head of a territorial prefecture, a Catholic entity that might be promoted into becoming a diocese. I am not a Catholic and so do not know for certain. I think there is a network of Polish Catholic churches in UK. This man is (or was) their overseer. He is apparently not a bishop, but presumably holds (or held) a similar but slightly inferior position. This seems to me to be at least approaching notability; certainly more than the minister of a local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's not involved with the Polish Roman Catholic Churches in the UK, but rather a small Old Catholic offshoot. He was apparently for two months in 2017 the administrative head of the body that was to become the Polish-Catholic Church in United Kingdom, an Old Catholic group with "one parish, two chapels and a group of believers of the Belarusian language". This apparently split off from the Old Catholic Church in Poland, which itself has, according to our article fewer than 600 members? But before that he was apparently in 2017 part of the Polish-Catholic Church of the Republic of Poland since the article says he helped contribute to their canon law? And now he's on leave of absence and not working as a priest? There's no evidence of notability here.--Jahaza (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jade lizard

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

Non-notable options strategy. This was invented by the financial network Tastytrade some years ago. They use it a lot but it has seen very little use in the wider industry. It's a shame, too; this is absolutely not investment advice but I do this strategy a lot. Oh well. TraderCharlotte (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. TraderCharlotte (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note I have a slight COI when it comes to Tastytrade- I sometimes email the CEO questions about my own trading. I will add that to my userpage. TraderCharlotte (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lauri Nurminen

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

The article does not really make a claim to notability. Being the last verteran of a civil war to die is not really such a claim, especially when people knew so little about you they had to hunt you out to find you and at first thought that someone else was the holder of this non-notable title. Beyond this the article has no sources, and has had a tag notifying us of this fact for almost 9 years. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Finland. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Single newspaper ref in fi.wp article appears to collaborate the content, but isn't sufficient to establish notability. I'll do a bit of digging around, but I'm not too hopeful. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's at least one text discussing a "Lauri Nurminen" (whether it's the same person, I'm not completely certain) on the website of Suomen Sotaveteraaniliitto (transl. Finnish Union of War Veterans), but I'm not quite convinced that it counts as independent of the subject. Someone with that name is also mentioned in an Aamulehti story that I can't access due to a paywall, but based on the title and the opening paragraph, I think the story is focused on another person. The National Library of Finland newspaper archives found plenty of hits for the name, but these appear to be very passing and some are presumably about a different person altogether:
- Someone called Lauri Nurminen drowned in a boating accident: [2]
- Lauri Nurminen mentioned as one of hundreds given the Order of the Cross of Liberty: [3]
- Someone by that name played football: [4]
- Someone by that name elected to a municipal committee of some kind: [5], [6]
That said, I didn't go through every single result in the newspaper archives given how low-quality even the most relevant hits were. Leaning towards a delete, unless someone can find sources to establish notability. Note that the name is an extremely standard Finnish name, so any sources should be scrutinized to make sure they are actually discussing the article subject. - Ljleppan (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment above -Ljleppan (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. ✗plicit 00:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Pod Generation

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

Future film lacking significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NYF, move to draft would be appropriate until release or when production becomes notable BOVINEBOY2008 20:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NYF is not an enforceable guideline, it's an essay that some can agree on or not. Per the notability guideline WP:NFF, it satisfies the caveat that production must have begun on the project to exist in mainspace. Rusted AutoParts 20:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belgium and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- NFF does not state that if production has begun then the project can exist in mainspace. It is a necessary but insufficient requirement. The article still must meet WP:GNG, which currently this film does not meet. BOVINEBOY2008 23:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify WP:TOOSOON DonaldD23 talk to me 23:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:NFF, WP:NYF and WP:CRYSTAL. The Film Creator (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus Lantern (TV series)

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

Subject lacks notability; entire article is one introductory sentence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Wescher (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and China. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added billed cast list, has some notable cast, link to folklore. Series appears to be a 35–episode drama which fully aired. Likely can obtain more information from the Chinese version of the article. Maybe someone with better translation skills can bring in some references, other cast/crew links and a plot summary.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Jin, Bo (2005-09-30). "TV programmes offer a good choice for recreation during holiday break". China Daily. p. 14. ProQuest 257901391. Archived from the original on 2022-04-11. Retrieved 2022-04-11.
  The article provides three sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "CCTV Channel 8, a specialized TV drama channel, will begin broadcasting the 35-part "Lotus Lantern (Baolian Deng) on October 4. The drama is based on an ancient myth. Liu Xiaoqing, one of China's top 1980s movie stars who lately has faded from the public eye, plays the part of the Empress of the heavenly court. Viewers will also be able to count on their old favourites during the holiday."
2. "Clever casting saves show from pitfalls". The New Paper. 2006-04-17. p. 24. Retrieved 2022-04-11 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
  The article is at https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/newpaper20060417-1.2.21. The page notes: "Note: This article may only be viewed from the multimedia stations at NLB Libraries."
  The snippet notes (my bolding): "Clever casting saves show from pitfalls €rUIDEL TView LOTUS LANTERN STARRING: Cm Jm, JIm En-jun, Lid Xiao QIU. Yvnm Lin, Part Ml Sm SHOWING ON: CIummI 8, WMkdays, 7pm, starling lonigrn RATING: By HoLian-Yi lianyi (3tsph.eom.sg 1MUST admit I have no love for international collaborations when it comes to TV (422 words)"
3. "真命小和尚曹骏17岁了演《宝莲灯》男主角和林湘萍谈情" [The young monk Cao Jun is 17 years old and plays the leading role of "Lotus Lantern" and has a romantic relationship with Lin Xiangping]. Shin Min Daily News (in Chinese). 2004-03-30. p. 14. Retrieved 2022-04-11 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
  The article is at https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/shinmin20040330-1.2.19.10. The page notes: "Note: This article may only be viewed from the multimedia stations at NLB Libraries."
  The snippet notes: "真曹演《管报真命小和尚目前正在浙江演出剧中《宝莲灯》是这部 30 集剧集是新传媒联合投资拍完演出沉香的曹起 (253 words)". From Google Translate: "Zhen Cao Yan's "The Little Monk Guan Bao Zhen Ming is currently performing in Zhejiang". "The Lotus Lantern" is a 30-episode drama that has been jointly invested by New Media. (253 words)"
4. "宝莲灯（首播）" [Lotus Lantern (Premier)]. Lianhe Zaobao (in Chinese). 2006-04-17. p. 28. Retrieved 2022-04-11 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
  The article is at https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Page/lhzb20060417-1.1.28. The page notes: "Note: This article may only be viewed from the multimedia stations at NLB Libraries."
  The snippet notes: "宝莲灯首播中国中央电视台集合新中台韩四地演员投入拍摄的《宝莲灯制作癸高达 6 o 万新元 u 新传媒艺人林湘萍 (176 words)".
  From Google Translate: "The Lotus Lantern premiered on China Central Television, which was filmed by actors from New China, Taiwan and South Korea. (176 words)"
5. "在中国拍'宝莲灯' 林湘萍新剧暗恋'小和尚'曹骏" [Filming 'Lotus Lantern' in China, Lin Xiangping's new drama secretly in love with 'Little Monk' Cao Jun]. Shin Min Daily News (in Chinese). 2004-05-10. p. 11. Retrieved 2022-04-11 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
  The article is at https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Page/shinmin20040510-1.1.11. The page notes: "Note: This article may only be viewed from the multimedia stations at NLB Libraries."
  The snippet notes: "在林暗管报电视观众到林湘萍了离开了和她通上电浙江的横店宝莲灯〉都说她像失年里她都一我们很随意地聊了近 (271 words)". From Google Translate: "When Lin Anguan reported that the TV audience went to Lin Xiangping and left, I called her Hengdian Baolian Lantern in Zhejiang. They all said that she was like a lost year. We chatted casually. (271 words)"
6. "图文：《宝莲灯》主演做客新浪-曹骏和林湘萍" [Photo: "The Lotus Lantern" starring Sina-Cao Jun and Lin Xiangping]. Sina Corporation (in Chinese). 2005-09-16. Archived from the original on 2022-04-11. Retrieved 2022-04-11.
  The article provides four sentences about the subject.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "CCTV's annual drama and large-scale mythical drama "Lotus Lantern" will be grandly premiered on CCTV's 8 sets of golden files on October 4th." The article notes that Sina interviewed the series' actors Jiao Enjun, Korean actor Park Meixuan, Singaporean actor Lin Xiangping and Cao Jun.
7. "资料：电视剧《宝莲灯》分集介绍(1-5)" [Information: Introduction to the TV series "Lotus Lantern" (1-5)] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2005-09-06. Archived from the original on 2022-04-11. Retrieved 2022-04-11.
  The article provides summaries of all 35 episodes of the TV series.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lotus Lantern (simplified Chinese: 宝莲灯; traditional Chinese: 寶蓮燈) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources. matt91486 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felice Bedford

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

No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online. Fails WP:GNG and "associate professor emeritus"WP:NACADEMIC. 7 pageviews in 30 days is not encouraging either. Edwardx (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scholar shows significant citation numbers: 211, 166, 160, 105, etc. I don't know what the h-value is, but it's solid. I can't find any newspaper references about court cases, which would very much help establish notability. Lamona (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find a notice that she testified [7], but it's a listing of information not an article about a case. DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see a case for WP:NPROF here, while some of her papers from 30 years ago have 100+ citations, that means less than 10 citations / year which is not what I would expect for a NPROF#1 ("The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."). --hroest 17:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence for your "10 citations/year" statement unless you have done a detailed distribution of years of publication and citations. And even so, picking out "some of her papers from 30 years ago" is not representative of her work - she continues to publish. The first 2 pages of G-Scholar results show 18 articles by her with a total of 818 citations. There's no need to make up bogus criteria. Lamona (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the citation record would convince me of WP:NPROF C1 in some fields, I believe psychology to be an especially high-citation field, and I don't think the subject's record is remarkable or indicative of high impact there. No other potential notability is apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPROF. Retired associate professor. Most of the references cited are her own papers or her university biography, in other words, primary sources. And some of the claims of significant work are not sourced at all. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Udayapur Gold Cup

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

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a local tournament only. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 21:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sisterhood Magazine

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

This magazine has a great title, however it is a non-notable defunct magazine (formerly called SUSIE Magazine.) It was likely created by an employee of Premier Studios [8] it's marketing firm which is also now defunct and non-notable. Unambiguous WP:PROMO WP:COI creation that does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NCORP. A search reveals nothing in the way of sourcing other than social media. Bringing it here for the community to discuss. Netherzone (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. CT55555 (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find nothing on this magazine (though there is an older Sisterhood magazine associated with the P.E.O. Sisterhood). At the same time I have been working on Susie Shellenberger's page, and also did not come across any magazine with this name. DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept, Merge to Brio (magazine), by adding a section to that to the effect that the editor <name> later produced <Sisterhood Magazine>. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively ti Brio (magazine) as there is not enough coverage for a stand-alone article imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MonsterMind

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

Article relies on a single source with no further information published since then. There is no way to improve the article from the current state, and the single source is naturally biased. I think this article violates possibly NPOV, but definitely WP:V (no way to verify, it's not in the released documents, or has been independently confirmed by anybody) and maybe notability. Phiarc (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2MASS J03504284+1716594

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

Not remotely notable. Comprehensively fails WP:NASTRO. No claims to notability made in the article. Lithopsian (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: SIMBAD contains only 1 reference to this source, and it's a big catalog paper. So, this definitely fails WP:NASTRO. Aldebarium (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly Redirect: I agree that we should probably delete it, as per Praemomitus and Aldebarium. However, a redirect to List of stars in Taurus may also be possible. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing special about this star. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Klingenthal

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

No reliable source given - the only stated source for the actual battle does not mention it (Vol. 4 of "The Cambridge Modern History" from 1906, see CHAPTER XIII. THE LATER YEARS OF THE THIRTY YEARS' WAR under http://mateo.uni-mannheim.de/camenaref/cmh/cmh.html#cmh4); probably a hoax Palastwache (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I' ve tried a Google books search and found no mention of a "battle of Klingenthal" (or in German "Schlacht bei Klingenthal") either. You may check for yourself. Palastwache (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition 2: Google Scholar lists [one mention] in a self-publishing book from 2020. The mention on page 117 reads like it was copied from Wikipedia: "After a brief continuation of the campaign that ended with the battle of Klingenthal, it allowed Sweden to occupy Saxony." Palastwache (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's Google Books not Google Scholar, and Clube de Autores is a self-publishing service. I checked the index of Parker's The Thirty Years War (2006). No Klingenthal. Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found it first via Google Scholar because I searched on Google Books initially only with the German term and with "Klingenthal 1642". Looks like this only mention is definitely not a reliable source. Palastwache (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list of 42 battles in de Peyster 1884, pp. 630–636 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFde_Peyster1884 (help) has no Klingenthal. The second Breitenfeld battle is followed by the Surprise of Tuttlingen on 1643-11-24. No battle on on 1642-11-11 is listed. Uncle G (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- de Peyster, J. Watts (December 1884). "The Thirty Years War". United Service: A Monthly Review of Military and Naval Affairs. Vol. 11, no. 6. pp. 629–681.
There's no Klingenthal to be found in either volume of Anton Gindely's 1884 History of the Thirty Years' War, which are FUTON and searchable. Uncle G (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G: just trying to help, it just appearred as if you had added content but forgot to sign (no big deal, it happens) but now it appears you wanted it that way. Were you trying to manually create the equivalent of a reftalk template? Just curious. - wolf 04:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was a very simple ordinary list, below a very definitely signed discussion contribution. And you just randomly blanked part of what I wrote with this comment, notice. I respect the intentions, but the execution has generated some repair work. And it wasn't necessary in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, you can't possibly think that was deliberate. Aside from that, you made an edit and left content that appearred as if it was unsigned. Again, if you were trying to create a manual reflist, there is a template for that. That said, just put your signature at the end/bottom of your posts to avoid issues like this. Have a nice day - wolf 11:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've asked about it on Swedish Wikipedia, and another user took it to German Wikipedia, to see if we can dig up anything. /Julle (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The search on Swedish and German Wikipedia didn't yield anything. Likely hoax. /Julle (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked The Northern Wars by Robert Frost (albeit via a fragmentary gbooks search) and it's not mentioned, despite a significant discussion of Breitenfeld. I would also delete as a likely hoax. Wham2001 (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. I too came up with nothing. Srnec (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- This (if real) was certainly not a major engagement: 1500 men v 2400. For second Breitenfeld, it was 20000 v 26000, but that does not mean that a minor engagement did not happen. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron: But do we have anything which does indicate it took place? Any reliable source whatsoever? The entire problem is that the sources referenced don't mention the battle, nor can we find it anywhere else where it ought to have been mentioned, the sole exception being a self-published book which most likely copied Wikipedia. I don't think anyone has questioned it on notability grounds, but only due to verifiability. /Julle (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron: This is not about relevance - the numbers do not matter. It is about verifiability and to some degree also about plausibility. We have until today no reliable source and the content, despite seemingly plausible on the surface, is not very convincing to me in the details. 1) "Count Magnar Svendssen"? - no evidence of his existence. 2) "cannon ... spirited out of Breitenfeld" - the Swedes captured all imperial guns at Breitenfeld. 3) Infantry fleeing from Breitenfeld all the way to Klingenthal? - in general, infantry either had time and cover for an orderly retreat or it would not leave the battlefield at all (the northern infantry group of the Imperials at Breitenfeld retreated orderly, the southern group was entirely captured); Klingenthal is no plausible flight-destination, the fastest way back to Bohemia would be via Dresden and there were Saxon garrisons (allied with the Imperials) in Magdeburg, Wittenberg, Dresden, Freiberg, Chemnitz and Zwickau, all providing temporary safety. 4) Almost no survivors on one side? - not common practice in this war, soldiers tended to capitulate and to let themselves forced into enemy ranks rather fighting to death; exceptions exist but were reported as remarkable (i. e. the failed surrender of Spanish battalions at Rocroi). 5) And have you noticed the longbows? Longbows in 1642? Palastwache (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sshakshi Chovan

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

Non-notable actress who fails to meet the requirements of WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Nothing significant found in WP:BEFORE, no verifiable film credits, and the cited sources are self-published sources which do not contribute to notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

178 (number)

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

Appears to fail WP:NNUM, as it only has 2 interesting mathematical properties listed. interstatefive (talk) - just another roadgeek 18:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. interstatefive (talk) - just another roadgeek 18:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
178 is the number of median graphs on nine vertices.^[1] Being palindromic in three consecutive bases (454₆, 343₇, 262₈) might be considered interesting too. If deleted, 178 would become the lowest integer without its own article. Certes (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Despite Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/198 (number) and a recent remark I made on my talk page I'm not actually in favor of deleting most or all of our existing number articles. This is one that I already cleaned up and found enough properties that I thought were interesting to rescue it (the two in the article at the time of nomination). If I understood https://oeis.org/A061777 or https://oeis.org/A000650 clearly enough to summarize in a single sentence I would also have added them. Another is https://oeis.org/A053018 : it's one of the indexes of the smallest triple of dodecahedral numbers where one is the sum of the other two. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that between what's in the article now (slightly expanded since the nomination) and the other points mentioned above, this gets over the bar. The sequences in which it appears don't all lend themselves to brief verbal summary, but that's a challenge for writing, not grounds for deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – not the most exciting integer in the universe, but the expanded article just passes WP:NNUMBER and the presence of articles for all other numbers in the range tips the balance. Certes (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sloane, N. J. A. (ed.). "Sequence A292623 (Number of median graphs on n nodes)". The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. OEIS Foundation.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:V is a core policy, requiring that all material - at least all contested material, as in this AfD - be reliably sourced. The article has no references even after 7 days of AfD, which makes deletion mandatory, irrespective of the consensus in this discussion that this would probably be an appropriate topic for an article. The article can be restored to draft via WP:REFUND by those who want to work on properly sourcing it, but it would probably be easier to rewrite it from scratch based on reliable sources. Sandstein 06:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National awakening of Romania

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

Complete synthesis of ideas. No clear central topic; national awakening is a disambiguation page, making it unclear what this is even supposed to be. Prod removed without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy delete on the basis of zero citations. CT55555 (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The French and Romanian articles are substantial and well sourced, clearly indicating notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: And those sources are just going to magically appear here too, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they don’t, they indicate that the subject is notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources, upon translation, do not seem to use the term "national awakening", though. This is just a random grab bag of historical anecdotes with no clear focus. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep. I think the nom needs to clarify the objection before any serious discussion can be had. As I read it, as a non-specialist, this article is intended to cover the emergence of Romanian national identity and/or nationalism in the 19th century. "National awakening" seems not to be a proper noun (although some scholarly sources do use it: eg. 1]) and if so would fail WP:NDESC but this is grounds for re-namingnot deletion. The subject almost certainly meets WP:GNG. In this context, can you please clarify exactly what your objection is? The fact that it is unsourced is not, in itself, grounds for deletion either. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(As an aside, further research suggests that the Romanian term Renașterea națională is indeed used as a given term by historians of this period, similar to comparable terms in Hungarian and Croat historiography. See eg 2 and 3). —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is that "National awakening of Romania" doesn't seem to be a clearly defined topic. This just seems to be a random grab-bag of assorted historical trivia with no clear focus on what it's supposed to be talking about. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a comment above which suggests that "National Awakening" is indeed an established concept in Romanian historiography. I agree that the article quality and structure is poor but the subject seems perfectly straightforward. The only question is whether the article is so bad that WP:TNT is justified. I do not think this is the case, but you might clarify whether you agree?—Brigade Piron (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I think a maintenance tag older than my mattress is a good enough sign that WP:TNT is a good idea. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, well thanks for clarifying your view. I think the article is long way from TNT territory and could easily be made into a useable stub, so I will change my vote to oppose. —Brigade Piron (talk)
Keep -- The subject is essentially the origins of modern Romania, charting the movement from principalities under Ottoman suzerainty to an independent state. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Destroy the Robots

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

Notability. There seems to be quite a bit of coverage compared to the band's previous albums, but nothing ample or extensive enough to make the album warrant a standalone article. Are the three reviews cited in the article acceptable?

Redirect to band article "The Red Paintings" Mooonswimmer 17:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Note that in recent months there have been some odd incidents concerning the articles for this band and its albums; see this and this. I got mixed up in that saga and tried to help clean up the mess, learning in the process that some of the band's albums qualify for WP articles while others do not. This one made the official charts in Australia and earned some fairly in-depth reviews in that country's music media, and those achievements are supported with references already in the article. It's enough for a basic introductory article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Their other albums may be redirected, but this one charted and has coverage. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently referenced and detailed to demonstrate notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:NALBUM. Dan arndt (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Red Paintings#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 17:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Virgin Mary Australian Tour Acoustic/Strings Album

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

Notability. Couldn't really find any ample, independent coverage.

Redirect to band article "The Red Paintings" Mooonswimmer 16:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Red Paintings#Discography. Some of this band's albums qualify for WP articles but others do not. This article is dependent on sources that are actually about the band and its larger history, and this particular album received little notice in its own right beyond some basic announcements of its release. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Red Paintings per doomsayer520. I found some refs for the album but not sufficient for a stand-alone article. The parent article already contains relevant information on this release.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Red Paintings#Discography. ✗plicit 00:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Love

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

Notability. Couldn't really find any ample, independent coverage.

Redirect to band article "The Red Paintings" Mooonswimmer 16:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Red Paintings#Discography. Note that in recent months there have been some odd incidents concerning the articles for this band and its albums; see this and this. Some of the band's albums qualify for their own articles but this one does not, as I can find no evidence of media coverage except for basic listings of its existence. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Red Paintings per doomsayer520. I added sources for this EP but could not find substantial discussion of its content.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DOOMSDAYER. Cabrils (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Red Paintings#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 17:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Flummox

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

Notability. Couldn't really find any ample, independent coverage.

Redirect to band article "The Red Paintings" Mooonswimmer 16:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Red Paintings#Discography. Some of this band's albums qualify for WP articles but others do not. This one is only visible in the typical streaming and directory services and even those are rare. It's an obscure early release by a band that became more notable later, but this album gained no reliable notice in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Red Paintings per doomsayer520. When I edited this article earlier this year I was unable to find substantial discussion of this release.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DOOMSDAYER. Cabrils (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Land Art Mongolia. Sandstein 06:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Schmitz

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

A review was due so this nom. Seems like most of the coverage are namechecks only so doesn't qualify under WP:SIGCOV. Knud Truelsen (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Schmitz has been in a number of biennials and group museum exhibitions, some of which are notable, and others of which aren't. These are probably sufficient for NARTIST. The main problem as noted by Knud Truelsen is there are few RS with SIGCOV. His resume's list of publications only includes about 15 [9] but they mostly are just passing mentions. The biggest red flag for me, is that his resume lists participation in two successive editions of the Venice Biennale, neither of which was verifiable, even after a deep search. The first claims "55th Venice Biennial, Il Palazzo Enciclopedico , Venice, Italy" which implies he was in the main exhibition, curated by Massimiliano Gioni, which he wasn't: [10]. He also claims to have been part of the following biennale: "56th Venice Biennial, Palazzo Zorzi, Venice, Italy." It appears that Palazzo Zorzi is the building where Unesco has a field office, and maybe they held some kind of event, but [11] I wasn't able to find any independent RS to verify either of these claims. For me this is a big red flag, as it is indicative of the kind of resume inflation associated with PROMO and in some cases Vanity exhibitions. Theredproject (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article is part of a small walled-garden consisting of three articles: Marc Schmitz, his partner Dolgor Ser-Od, and their curatorial project Land Art Mongolia, all of which were created by, and mainly edited by two single purpose accounts, with related names, one of which references one of the artists. This indicates that this may very well be a self-promotional WP:COI-WP:PROMO creation. Of the three the Land Art Mongolia may be the most notable; perhaps merging into that artist is an alternative to deletion. Netherzone (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the first actions of a new user are to immediately start nominating articles for deletion: Special:Contributions/Knud_Truelsen. This is the 12th nomination. @Knud Truelsen would you care to explain? Vexations (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

selective merge to Land Art Mongolia. I think the project is notable and he's a part of the story, but not independently notable. As @Netherzone: note, there's been some SPA editing there as well and it needs to be cleaned up/maintained with more eyes on it, otherwise the copypasta is going to continue. Star Mississippi 14:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - selectively with Land Art Mongolia as per comments by Star Mississippi. Subject of this article is not notable on their own, but is associated with LAM which seems to be notable. Netherzone (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ethnic groups in Afghanistan#Smaller groups. Consensus is that there's not enough substance for a separate article. All editors are free to merge content from the history as appropriate. Sandstein 13:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kurds in Afghanistan

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

"Institutkurde.org" mentions one word about Afghanistan.
"www.prayway.com" seems to be a Christian advocacy website.[12]
Stephen Tanner. No page cited.
Madih (2007); no source cited.
"Iran Nomad Tours" -> no mention of Afghanistan.

In addition to failed WP:RS and WP:VER as mentioned above, I believe this article also fails WP:N. It appears there were some Kurds in what is present-day Afghanistan centuries ago, but they failed to coalesce themselves as an actual group and thereby leaving an important historic mark on the country. Thus, I believe this subject doesn't warrant being a stand-alone article. It should be either 1) deleted 2) merged into History of Afghanistan and/or Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan#Smaller_groups. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. LouisAragon (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. LouisAragon (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. LouisAragon (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Redirect and merge to a suitable article. Keep only if the Encyclopaedia of Islam source provides substantial coverage. "www.prayway.com" is one RS for the purpose of establishing WP:GNG but we need a second and the EoI article cited is the only candidate I see so far. Springnuts (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Springnuts: The Enc. of Islam reference has now been removed by the creator of the page. I checked the entry nevertheless,[13] and this is the only mention of anything related to Kurds: "Tīmūr’s involvement in the politics of the Arab, Kurdish and Turkmen dynasties of eastern Anatolia had brought him into conflict with the Mamlūks and Ottomans." Its safe to say that this single sentence is unrelated to any sort of supposed Kurdish history in what is present-day Afghanistan. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Iran Nomad Tours" wasnt suppose to be about afghanistan, it was suppose to be about Kurds nomadic lifestyle. and "Institutkurde.org" did mention one thing about afghanistan, but it was about the population of kurds in afghanistan, which i listed that source for population ONLY. and i removed "www.prayway.com" and everything i got from there. as for the book sources, none of them mentioned anything about afghan kurds but they did mention about the mongol invasions. i have wanted to make this article for a long time now, and i finally did make it, i believe its better for this article to keep it a stand-alone article. i have added more information and sources, and i added another section. - Kelhuri (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New sources. The AISS [[14]] looks to be a RS, but please see WP:NONENG and provide translations. As it stands I’m leaning to merge still but I’d encourage the article creator/champion to request also that this article is draftified which will allow them to write something - without hurry and pressure - which will clearly pass GNG and be of real value. If it can be done. Springnuts (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge/delete per the comments. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete and a Comment the statement in the nomination about the absence of Kurds in Afghanistan appears to be disproven by search about this on Google Scholar: https://www.proquest.com/openview/5ea995a90a79d646a591ad39697afa8b/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=44192 A search for "Kurds in Afghanistan" in Google Books took me to page 11 of Tapper, R. (2012). Tribe and State in Iran and Afghanistan (RLE Iran D): Taylor & Francis. which also speaks about Kurds in Afghanistan. I therefore think the nominating critique of sources might be valid, but the statement that the topic is not notable is incorrect. I don't know enough to express a solid vote, but I know enough to add that we should take an option that is not delete. CT55555 (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite & Merge, move to draft/sandbox, rewrite according to RS and merge into History of Afghanistan or Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan#Smaller_groups, if enough relevant information can be established. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kurds are notable, Afghanistan is notable, but not enough sourcing for Kurds in Afghanistan specifically means this is WP:SYNTH. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MelanieN (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delaire, Delaware

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

I don't how we missed this in our first pass over NCC, but this one is plainly bogus when the maps and aerials are considered. The name doesn't even appear until the 2014 topo, and when it does show up, it is placed in a spot that, after a hundred years of maps, is still blank space. As in, it's so blank that someone has to be deliberately keeping it bare of trees and structures. And in fact, someone is: the area is the grounds of the Cauffiel estate, which you can rent out for your posh weddings and such. The GNIS spot has drifted southwest a little, so that it now sits next to an old bank barn that is also part of the Cauffiel property; the neighborhood beyond is Bellevue, attested to by decade upon decade of topos. I have no ldea where the name Delaire came from, but I note that it gets false hits galore in GBooks because it is apparently a common mis-scan of "Delaware". Anyway, this spot is obviously not a settlement of any kind. Mangoe (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Delaware. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delaire is a subdivision which as far as I can tell is located on both sides of the Cauffiel estate, hence the location in the middle of the lawn. The three 1940 advertisements [15][16][17] which were provided as deprod rationale tell us that it existed but don't establish notability. The only substantial independent coverage is one of those routine neighborhood profiles that the Wilmington News Journal used to do, which doesn't impress me. –dlthewave ☎ 21:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another generic subdivision/housing development like the one I grew up in. An unremarkable neighborhood profile is not adequate for notability. Reywas92^Talk 23:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the following sources should be enough for a GNG pass: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] and [28]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not having looked at every one of these, with the one exception of a routine community facility news item, they are all "hey, there's this new subdivision!" real estate advertizing-disguised-as-news, published in the local newspaper. They don't satisfy GNG. Mangoe (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What part of GNG (A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.) excludes local news? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant". Routine coverage dfrom a local paper is not significant. Mangoe (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV states: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material", as is the case here. Djflem (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MILL. Not an empty area; people live there in houses and apparently have neighborhood disputes over lawns and whatnot, and a state Senator was born there. But it's a run-of-the-mill subdivision. BBQboffin (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think pointing to an essay is a valid reason to delete, as it meets GNG which is the actual guideline. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies GNG.Djflem (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. The coverage is routine material like unto that about any residential development. Mangoe (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GNG says A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and SIGCOV states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. How does this not pass? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG as at least a notable neighbourhood based on the sources presented above and in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided by BeanieFan11 are sufficient for us to verify the existence of the neighborhood and to pass WP:GNG on top of that. I see multiple instances of non-trivial coverage there by independent RS, so I think that the neighborhood is notable. The article should be expanded using those references so as to no longer be a geostub, but that an article needs to be expanded is no reason to delete it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Whig Party

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

Article does not comply with WP:NPOV, is promotional, showing advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment to a related political entity (Modern Whig Institute) and as presented does not belong on Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Otr500 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've never heard of this political party, until today. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a tricky one, as there is quite a bit of coverage on newspapers.com, but it is all superficial and shallow in scope; those that aren't fall under WP:RSOPINION as opinion pieces, and the one's that aren't op-eds don't provide WP:SIGCOV. [29] I made some clippings of the best ones I could find, and here are the parameters I used [30]. Curbon7 (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the most prominent mention of the party was in a David Brooks opinion piece, published a few months before the merger was negotiated: Opinion | The American Renaissance Is Already Happening - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

It sparked a debate in some circles. Here's one offering, which includes a link to the Institute which must have been added later (we didn't exist in June 2018): Why the American Whig Party Cannot Be Revived (lawliberty.org)

There's been discussion of Whiggery in general all along. Here's one piece from the period when the party was being revived after a dormant post-Tea Party period (full disclosure: the author has since become a personal friend of mine): Where Are the Whigs (When We Need Them)? - The American Interest (the-american-interest.com)

And here's a typical attack from the Austrian flank: David Brooks, The Whigs, and Corporate Welfare | Mises Institute

All of those popped up in a simple search. So, while the party never achieved any significant electoral gains -- which was the reason for the merger to form the Alliance Party (the story of barriers to entry for independent parties is a long one, @Johnpacklambert) -- Whiggery itself has been a significant tradition in American politics all along. And while the MWP ultimately failed, as did the first American Whig Party, the effort didn't go entirely unnoticed.

Which may or may not mean the entry should be retained. But I think it's prudent to look at the MWP from the perspective of an historical artifact, especially since it no longer exists, and make any judgments on that basis. KevinJRogers (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As executive director of the Modern Whig Institute (I'm speaking here in that capacity rather than as a Wikipedia editor) I think I need to clear up a misunderstanding here: the Institute isn't a "related political entity" to anything, @Otr500, let alone to a political party which no longer exists. We're an independent civic association/think tank.

We don't lobby, and we're barred by law from engaging in electoral politics: "(A)ll section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity."

I have no idea whether that has any bearing on what happens to the Modern Whig Party entry. I just wanted to make sure any decision is based on the facts as they stand today.

Thank you! KevinJRogers (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when about the best that can be said for your organization is that someone who claimed to be a member was elected as constable in some super small place while running officially as a member of another political party, your are not a significant organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is the wrong way of looking at this. There are a number of American politicial parties, like U.S. Labor Party and Liberty Union Party, that do reach notability even though they are at best minimally successful. It's entirely dependent on the range of sources that exist. Curbon7 (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete makes no sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottWillis45 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many of the deletion proponents are not appropriately applying the standard for notability. For example, it is disingenuous for someone to argue for deletion simply because that user has never heard of this party. While clearly a minor political party, it 1) received considerable media coverage over a period of several years; and 2) was notable for some of its members winning or running as Whigs for the first time in 150 years, including one individual who specifically defeated a Democrat on the Modern Whig Party ticket for the first Whig victory in 159 years. According to the page, media coverage included the front page of the Wall Street Journal and inclusion into an up-and-coming political parties list in Time Magazine. The opinion pieces cited are not written as letters to the editor, but were crafted by on-staff opinion writers from various media outlets, including Slate and the News & Observer in NC. As such, the party is notable for the effort, coverage, and impact on the history of the Whig Party in modern times. Saying that, the article can certainly be fixed to remove references to the Modern Whig Institute (which does not appear to be notable at this time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardvark31 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DMySon (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of tennis

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

Redundant to Tennis, which provides a much more comprehensive overview of the sport. Also largely abandoned, with fewer than 50 edits in 10 years (vs. 1500+ for Tennis). Letcord (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Letcord (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— I agree that the Outline page nominated here needs to be dragged into good shape, no question. However, Outline pages are wholly different beasts from standard article pages. Even if Tennis does a more comprehensive job than Outline of tennis, the aim of the two pages is different. Personally, I've seldom used Outline pages, but when I have they've been helpful, more so for complex topics that are difficult to wrangle with search results alone. Tennis is not one of those complex topics, though. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has had 13 years to get into shape, and it is a terrible representative of WikiProject Tennis, completely outdated and amateurish. This isn't a standard article where notability comes into play, so just because it could be useful doesn't mean we should keep it in such a shambolic state. Letcord (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Lists. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - big topic with many articles that could use a central index/outline like this. It's not in competition with the main tennis article; it's a list of subtopics for ease of navigation/learning. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does what WP:OUTLINEs are supposed to do, which necessitates some overlap with the main article. The rest of the deletion rationale, the need for maintenance/updating, is characterized at WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions under the name WP:NEGLECT. I agree that there are problems to be fixed, but deletion would prevent editors from improving it in the future. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this were a normal article where notability came into play, WP:NEGLECT would be a bad argument to make. But it's been 13 years and nobody from WikiProject Tennis has spent time working on this overview, unlike Tennis, so realistically no one will. It therefore fails the "realistic potential for expansion" standard in WP:NEGLECT. The statement "Does what WP:OUTLINEs are supposed to do" is also incorrect as it gives a very poor, outdated outline of tennis. The {{Tennis box}} navbox on the Tennis article does a much better job at providing the basic links. Letcord (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing gained by deleting it, and some people still use it. In the past 90 days 1,044 page views recorded. If you deleted articles because they weren't complete and perfect, that'd wipe out most of Wikipedia. This is a perfectly valid outline page. Dream Focus 21:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful per WP:OUTLINE for someone who may not know very much about tennis or the professional tours. Could be tagged with {{Cleanup}} or {{Update}} as an alternative to deletion. Bonoahx (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editing history does not decide whether the article should be kept or not. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ficaia (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

F4 Thailand: Boys Over Flowers

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

Sources look suspect to me - mainly YouTube and Facebook Ficaia (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has the nominator performed a WP:BEFORE check? Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, and the latter already includes multiple English-language news sources from the Philippines. These articles from Yahoo Singapore[31] and Lifestyle Asia[32] would appear to be in-depth coverage from fairly reputable online lifestyle magazines. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC), 15:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the news sources already in the article and the two sources mentioned above that enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Volunteer

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

unnotable. from the article, i can't even tell what this place is. 晚安 (トークページ) 09:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found this photo [[33]] - but the caption is odd: a FOB is not the same thing as a camp. According to this link [[34]] it was previously known as Camp Provider and is (/was) in the Olympic Training Center on the East side of Baghdad. Nowhere near "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so fails WP:GNG. Springnuts (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find brief mentions at most, and not in suitable sources. One of the problems is that camps change names frequently. Volunteer was later name Provider, and in one list it was listed as an FOB. That latter may have pre-dated it getting "camp" status. In any case, one of many posts in the Iraq war, and not notable. Lamona (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postearly

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

Most sources are not independent or reliable. wwwhatsnew blog post [35] is probably independent, but one source won't make it for WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Onmyway22 talk 09:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per WP:NCORP, article includes several Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary sources. For example wwwhatsnew blog post [36], Listin Diario, one of the leading newspapers in the Dominican Republic, and the oldest still being published.[37], Forbes feature article on the physical magazine [38] and more. Fran.ziro (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability. As to the refs mentioned by Fran.ziro above - blog posts fail WP:RS, the Listin Diario is an article on how the company was selected to go to "Seedstars Summit" in Switzerland but fails to provide any in-depth info on the company (fails CORPDEPTH), and the Forbes reference is 3 sentences that provides a short company description in a list of other company descriptions for their "30 Promising Companies" article. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piccadilly Circus in popular culture

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

Yet another article that violates WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA. The short prose section is poorly referenced and has WP:OR issues, and the list that follows has all the problems listed in my short explanation so far. Another bad case of TVtropism, also violating its own loose inclusion criteria ("The following list is of artistic works and film where Piccadilly Circus is either the central theme or a principal theme. -> "Used as an establishing shot of London during the morning rush hour in Rose, the inaugural episode of the revived Doctor Who TV show" or "Piccadilly Circus is mentioned in the Jethro Tull song Mother Goose."; where a quick glance at the lyrics confirms it's just a passing mention in a single line...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails absolutely for all the reasons given. No more than an old-style collection of random miscellaneous references (passing references in many cases), that often aren't even about the subject – Piccadilly in London is not the same place as Piccadilly Circus. Once the trivia is eliminated the remaining useful information, if any, should be incorporated into the relevant articles. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the main article. I don't like this old one-two where people shunt off parts of a "popular culture" section to its own article, then put that up for deletion. It could be trimmed, though actually it is a very long way from complete. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The prose bits of this article are already present in the existing, decently filled out pop culture section on the main Piccadilly Circus article, and the remainder of this article is just non-notable, poorly sourced trivia that should not be on the main article, thus leaving no reason for a Merger. Rorshacma (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Anything not trivial (and not already included) can be included in the main article. Llwyld (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This list is a collection of trivia and unsourced original research. There is nothing salvageable here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to a appropriate page. Spkabil (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of unencyclopedic trivia containing gems such as "Piccadilly Circus was in the final Harry Potter movie" AusLondonder (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Tan

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

Non-notable actor fails WP:NACTOR. Un-referenced article fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A previous version was draftified, and the author promptly recreated the article. In its current form, it doesn't pass GNG or NACTOR. I suggest that the author should wait for the subject to have a couple of main lead roles, which shouldn't be too long for TCA managed artistes like the subject. The draft version can be kept while the subject accumulates the main roles. – robertsky (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
actually, if possible, draftify this version instead, as this is more developed (still without refs though). – robertsky (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a draft version of this article. This was cut & pasted back into main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is unsourced , at its current state it doesn't pass WP: NACTOR Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 13:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) --JBL (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surajit Chandra Das

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

Makes several claims to notability but searches in Google Books, ProQuest and other places do not give us anything that can support the claims. I'm not sure if winning the Anundoram Barooa Award is worthy of WP:ANYBIO or not but the claim is currently unsourced so I suppose that is a moot point. His work in mathematics would appear to allow for a passing of WP:NACADEMIC but I can't find anything to support the claims of inventing new formulae. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, Poetry, Mathematics, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personally I would have tagged this uncited autobiography with CSD A7 (the criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible) or G11. --JBL (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of mathematical work of any kind, let alone passing WP:PROF for it. Google Scholar has two profiles for people named Surajit Das, a marine immunologist [39] and a lipid drug delivery engineer [40]; neither appear to be the subject. MathSciNet lists nobody by that name. The other claims of the article appear equally overblown and unsourceable. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed, looks like a A7/G11 (to sound like someone who's been on Wikipedia too long). XOR'easter (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete g11 and g3 hoax. This is obviously made up puffy garbage. If there were a real credible claim here, it'd be a different story and there's not and a search shows this is all, well, bullshit. CUPIDICAE💕 16:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keith McMillen

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

COI article, most of the coverage is about his company's products/instruments. Namechecks doesn't qualify under WP:GNG. Knud Truelsen (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Kids TV

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

Created by a blocked sock WP:UPE. All sources are primary or interviews by the people involved in this show. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Islam, and Alberta. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Desertambition (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ora (currency)

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

Non-notable non-currency used exclusively in the town of Orania, Northern Cape. Claims about currency status fail WP:VERIFIABILITY and there is no proof it is actually pegged to the South African rand. Reliable sources emphasize the Ora as an effort to further establish a white ethnostate (or volkstaat) within South Africa rather than exist as an actual currency. This can all be covered, and already is, on the main Orania, Northern Cape article. The article is replete with false/misleading information, primary sources, non-English sources, and the article seems to exist largely for WP:PROMOTION. Reliable sources make it clear that the Ora is more accurately compared to a company scrip or coupon, and just one step above monopoly money. Desertambition (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't have a rule that only legal tender deserves coverage (we have articles on things like Canadian Tire money for instance). WP:GNG applies here and there are enough reliable sources in the refs to establish that. Any issue with the claims in the articles can be addressed in the usual way, via editing. Atchom (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will work on the article, please let me know what you think. I do believe any information mentioned within it can be found on the Orania, Northern Cape article. Desertambition (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no demonstration of a lack of notability. Also oppose the ongoing removals/rewriting that seem at attempt to make the article match the deletion rationale. (Also, of course it's pegged to the rand, it's a local currency in South Africa. It would be unusual for a local currency to not be pegged to the national currency.) CMD (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources did not support the claims in the article. It is unclear how you peg something to the rand when the scrip is not recognized by any government body. The Ora also has an experation date, like a coupon. Desertambition (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Kaputa

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

Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Cannot find any proper reviews for her books. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Run-of-the-mill businessperson. Edwardx (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Business, and Florida. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article seems like unambiguous WP:PROMO for a WP:MILL "motivational speaker" and author of self-branding strategies. The sourcing is very weak, consisting of an alumni newsletter, LinkedIn, two Amazon book sales links, primary sourcing to herself and name checks - I could find nothing in a BEFORE search that was significant coverage in independent sources. Does not meet notability criteria for WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by an SPA, promotional. She has published many books of "self-help" with a business bent. I do find some of her books by the hundreds in library collections, one with a short review in Publishers Weekly, and a different one in Library Journal. I still don't think this rises to the level of WP:NAUTHOR - it would still need additional substantial sources such as articles about her or in depth book reviews. Lamona (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An impressive woman. That aside, as written the article has inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. Unreliable coverage and not independent. Reads somewhat like WP:ADMASQ. NiklausGerard (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg L. Witt

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

No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely promotional; appears to be authored by subject; little in the way of independent reliable sources showing notability. Kablammo (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform to post an add to solicit your next speaking engagement. The person who put this up may not have been trying to do that, but the wording is all that and only that. The tone totally and completely unencyclopedic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sales pitch notwithstanding, this article should be deleted simply because it has inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. The likely motivation definitely doesn’t help it’s case though. NiklausGerard (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orania Representative Council

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

Article about a non-notable pseudo-governmental body that was created in 2017 (Clarification due to confusion in responses: Article was created in 2017, council was created in 1993). Article is replete with false information that is not supported by sources. Many of the sources are misleading, not in English, or just not relevant at all. Nothing about this council necessitates an article of its own. Anything that is of note is mentioned in the Orania, Northern Cape article. Orania has been an integral part of Thembelihle Local Municipality since 2001 from what I can tell. Information on the council was largely added by one user and fails WP:GNG. The article is extremely misleading and filled with WP:WEASEL words that imply Orania is a separate municipality. In fact, residents of Orania vote in local elections along with every South African. Strong suspicion this was created with WP:PROMOTION in mind. Desertambition (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article states that the first election was held in 2000, not 2017, as per NOM. Also, it's the only functioning transitional representative council, 22 years after the structures were abolished, and its existence is as the result of a judicial decision. The News24 article is a WP:RS on this [41]. WP:NGEO applies here: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". It appeared to retain its status as of 2016[42]. The standard for South African articles is to have articles about local government structures that are distinct from their constituent towns. Nominator can remove uncited or misleading text without resorting to deletion. "Orania has been an integral part of Thembelihle Local Municipality since 2001" seems to be contradicted by the WP:RS on this matter. Park3r (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you wrote is pretty incorrect and misleading. Orania ceased to exist as a separate transitional representative council in 2001. The 2016 article you linked does not say they exist as a separate entity, only that they are mostly ignored. They still pay taxes, vote, and are subject to South African laws and regulations. The News24 article you linked was written in 2000.

WP:NGEO does not apply here, that only applies to the article Orania, Northern Cape.

"Orania has been an integral part of Thembelihle Local Municipality since 2001" is an accurate statement. Desertambition (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether it presently exists or not (and you haven't provided a WP:RS to show that the transitional council was abolished) it did exist and was notable, therefore it remains notable as per WP:NTEMP. UPDATED: the representative council was still extant in 2016 [43]. Park3r (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Park3r is correct. Whether the transitional representative council still exists or not is not relevant to the question of notability. Sources from 2000 are evidence of notability. The Mail and Guardian article of August 2016 is also evidence of notability.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it has coverage in independent reliable sources that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Whether one approves or not of Oriana is not relevant to whether Wikipedia has an article on a topic (for example, we have an article on the murder of Oksana Makar, and I assume that no sane person approves of her murder).-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The Wikipedia article was created in 2017. The council was created in 1995.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My request is not about whether or not I "approve" of the council, it is about WP:GNG guidelines and none of the sources in the article focus on the representative council. Wikipedia is not a WP:DATABASE and every passing mention of organizations does not need an article, especially when the main Orania, Northern Cape article already covers the topic adequately. Desertambition (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you say about "none of the sources in the article focus on the representative council" is untrue.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is true actually. All of the articles focus on Orania, Northern Cape not the council. Can you please link the articles that focus on the council exclusively? Desertambition (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News24 5 December 2000, Germiston City News 20 July 2016, Statement on Cabinet meeting of 4 April 2001 (one paragraph)-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deletion rationale is flawed on several points. Firstly, there is no requirement for sources to be in English (see WP:RSUE). It would not be surprising if some of the sources on this topic were in Afrikaans. Secondly, whether the council has been subsequently abolished is irrelevant. Some very good sources have been identified above, such as the 2016 Mail & Guardian article. Concerns regarding article quality or content is best addressed by improving the article, not deleting it. AusLondonder (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current status of the council is irrelevant; but it is notable for lasting well past all other representative councils were abolished and even more so because of the racial politics of Orania.

Hussierhussier1 (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Karánsebes

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

I have concerns whether this incident is notable (WP:GNG). The article seeml like a WP:OR mess (starting with the lead which claims this incident "supposedly occurred"). Source query for "Battle of Karánsebes" gives a passing mention in one reliable book (here), and few mentions in less reliable works: a larger account in an unreliable self-published book here - lulu.com, quite possibly based on our article, another one here, iUniverse, and a few more similar accounts. Our article includes a list of sources, but they are either primary or just master/doctoral theses. The references are almost entirely 18th-19th century primary sources. I am not sure this ORish mess can be rescued; as someone mentioned in the past AfD, this was an interesting 'friendly fire' incident, but on that doesn't seem very well researched. Note that our article has infobox claiming 150 dead, referenced in text to a 1788 primary source; the text then provides two larger casualties assessments, one also to 18th century, one to a modern German doctoral thesis. But the single reliable mention I found and linked above is for "thousands", and such a high causlty count is more common in the mostly-unreliabe source found. As I said, this is a poorly researched mess. Comments appreciated - can this be rewritten and rescued, do we invoke WP:TNT, or do we just delete this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or find a merge target. Doctoral theses are the subject of an examination, which is similar to peer-review. I do not like the inclusion of the word "supposedly", but that is a matter of editing. There may be a conflict of evidence on casualty numbers, but that is an issue for improvement by editing and better research. We have enough sources to show that the incident happened, so that this is not a case of invention. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron Just to be clear, the doctoral thesis is not about this event, it only mentions it at some point. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to nom, by my count there are 4 19th century secondary sources in the list (old secondary sources are still secondary sources!) The article might need to be improved by a German-speaking editor, but prima facie notability is established. Atchom (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Years ago I urged that Wikipedia's article on "Salvino D'Armati" (the supposed inventor of eyeglasses) be deleted because he was completely fictional. But it was decided to keep the article because D'Armati was prominent: he was cited in a number of sources. I don't understand why this article is being nominated for deletion. The Battle of Karánsebes actually happened: primary and secondary sources attest that. It is notable as a friendly fire incident but for the wrong reason: in 1968 Paul Bernard claimed (falsely) that about 10,000 people had died during the battle; in 2000 Geoffrey Regan's book on military blunders spread this falsehood widely — making the battle notable but for the wrong reason. (I mentioned this in the article but someone deleted that information.) That many of the sources date to the eighteenth or nineteenth century is irrelevant: they're valid sources and they're generally consistent with each other. That the article isn't tidy is grounds for extensive editing or a complete rewrite, not deletion. (I'd be willing to rewrite it if a restriction on subsequent editing were imposed so that someone else couldn't mess up my work.) If you decide to delete this article, then the article on "Salvino D'Armati" should also be deleted — for the same reason. VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per VexorAbVikipædia Oreo Priest ^talk 20:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Jones Expressway

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

No results in GBooks or GNews. Searches in the Indianapolis papers for both the current and former names only yielded brief construction blurbs or businesses using it as a point of reference. This is a barely two-mile stretch of road that's called "freeway" only because it has exit ramps. It doesn't have a state highway number or any significance, and therefore seems to fail WP:USRD/NT Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N doesn't expire just because the road has been depreciated; still an active road, despite most of its use now being as a local road rather than an airport spur, and the only reason it has no state designation is because of the state's policy of having no numbered roads outside I-65 and I-70 within the 465 loop. Nate • (chatter) 22:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: It never had a state highway designation to my knowledge. And that still doesn't address the absolute lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have found this source which discusses its history in detail back to 1960; "airport expressway" + "indianapolis" unearths some other quality links (which lead to newspapers.com; my WPL access shows there's plenty more in the Star discussing its history. Nate • (chatter) 04:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: The blog appears to be a self published source. I combed through every hit for "airport expressway" + "Indianapolis" on newspapers.com and all I found was trivial mentions or business ads using it as a point of reference. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an adequately-written article about what certainly was a notable road. And there's nothing that requires a highway article to be limited to only numbered routes: the province of Ontario alone has six. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AlgaeGraphix: Sources. Where are they? I couldn't find a single one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The renaming of "Airport Expressway" to the less descriptive, but honorary "Sam Jones Express" elicits enough confusion that information seekers will want to know what and why. Sources include:
- IBJ on renaming: https://www.ibj.com/articles/8526-airport-expressway-renamed-for-sam-jones
- Study citing the expressway for unusually high traffic levels: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jtrpaffdocs/43/
- Report with figure dating construction of new ramps: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/imr/4/
- Indianapolis International Airport Master Plan Development, 1992. Describes growing traffic problems and need for redevelopment: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Indianapolis_International_Airport_Maste/5vw0AQAAMAAJ
- History of the Interstate Highway System in Indiana: Route history, 1975. Describes some factors in decision making leading to creation: https://www.google.com/books/edition/History_of_the_Interstate_Highway_System/By0pAQAAMAAJ*:
- 1969 City Council ordinance renaming a section of Raymond Street to "Airport Expressway": https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/ccci/article/download/11903/11937
- Entry describing reason for renaming to Sam Jones Expressway: https://indyencyclopedia.org/sam-h-jones/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaireeodell (talk • contribs) 23:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- for clear failure to show notability; in that there is no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Springnuts (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources brought up by Jaireeodell (talk · contribs) are mostly passing mentions or city council notes, the latter of which do not seem to be sources suitable for notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alarms on submarines of the United States Navy

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

I cannot find the slightest indication that alarms on submarines of the United States Navy is a notable topic with significant coverage in secondary, independent sources. The references in the article appear to be manuals and technical documents, which are primary sources and cannot support a claim of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially trivia Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete topic is suitable for a textbook or manual but not an encyclopedia. Mccapra (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sure alarms on submarines are very important, but I dont think theres enough material here for a WP article Rlink2 (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kennet Island

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

Delete per WP:PROMO. Some parts of the articles are written like an advertisement (e.g. 'Located around the Central Piazza are a range of local businesses, including; Fidget & Bob, a café with excellent food & drink, and great reviews...'), and reference pages of property agencies. Ian1231100 (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so promotional the article would need to be completely deleted, but there is a question of whether it's notable as a suburb versus a development that I can't answer just by looking at the sources in the article. (I just deleted the most blatant promo.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is the correct option here given the promotional nature of the article. CharlesWain (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Marc

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

Local chocolate company that does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Capitol File is a local-focus magazine that isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Obviously their own website isn't independent. The Post-Gazette article is local fluff about a milkshake stand, not about the company. On a search, I don't see any substantive coverage at all, certainly nothing outside the Pittsburgh area (necessary for WP:AUD). We can't hang a whole article on one local-focus magazine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by Bbb23 – via WP:G5 (banned/blocked user). (non-admin closure)

Dibya Ranjan Giri

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

Every single source cited is self-published, no independent WP:RS. A WP:BEFORE search didn't yield anything better. Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. Previously speedy deleted twice and this one is a borderline speedy as well but escapes WP:A7 because the article says that he is 'well-known'. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, India, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable and persistent attempt in creating the page. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dibya Ranjan Giri. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 10:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Minorax Why do you think so. It meets the notability criteria.

[User:Chemistrylover3|Chemistrylover3]] ([[User talk:Chemistrylover3|talk]]) Chemistrylover3 (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Stoney Creek (Delaware). Valid ATD and sourcing/OR can be handled with selective, sourced merge. Star Mississippi 02:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bellevue Lake

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

Created by JFox 0931 (talk · contribs), who has a history of questionable article creations about natural features in northern Delaware, then PRODded by user VickKiang (talk · contribs) with rationale:

A questionably significant article without any refs that is an RS that I can find clearly includes original research that is required for the content. The ref provided is questionable and certainly not denoting "significant coverage", merely a database with a trivial mention of two sentences that "Bellevue Lake is near Wilmington. The most popular species caught here are Largemouth bass, Bluegill, and Black crappie. 309 catches are logged on Fishbrain." Indeed, most of the content of this article is original research, which fails a fundamental policy.

Deprodded by a user Djflem (talk · contribs) who thinks it should be redirected to another article, possibly Stoney Creek (Delaware), instead of deleting it outright. Also, the article has poor spelling and capitalization, and unencyclopedic style. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I previously nominated this user's articles for deletion, he added both original research and created trivial articles, I posted two messages and a warning, but with no response. I am not experienced at all in AfD, but from what I can see this article is poor both in its content and notability. Sources barely mention the lake at all and is a database, most of the content ("It is a flooded quarry and is very deep in some spots. It is located in a mostly suburban area but is very clean. It is surrounded by Forrest and is one of the last natural places in northern Delaware. Stoney Creek (Delaware River tributary in Delaware) Flows in and out of it providing the water needed to sustain the lake. There are sheer cliffs into it on some sides providing a breathtaking backdrop for the lake. It is a natural asset that the wildlife take advantage of. Unfortunately it is not open to the public and people are restricted of all acces.") is puffery or original research, with numerous spelling errors. It seems that the editor is apparently a local resident who is familiar with the lake and added self-written descriptions, but it should not IMO be on Wikipedia. A merge might also be all right, but the Stoney Creek article is still poor, it had a lot of original research added by the editor on minor, intricate details without refs. For example, consider this paragraph:

"Stony Creek Flows through mostly forest and winds its way through the rolling hills of Northern Delaware’s Piedmont. Stony Creek’s watershed begins near Forwood Elementary School. It then flows southeast where it meets Allen Tract Park or Forwood Preserve (it can be called either name). A small tributary called Jacksons Creek from this forested park meets Stony Creek Here. Stony Creek then winds its way down Northwood Park and into Carrcroft Crest Park. Another tributary of Stony Creek runs through Carrcroft Park and the neighborhood of Carrcroft until it reaches Stony Creek in Carrcroft Crest Park. Then Stony Creek goes under I-95 and briefly enters Bellellevue State Park. After that Stony Creek flows through a heavily forested piece of private property. On this property it goes over Stenkill Falls and enters Bellevue Lake. Bellevue Lake was a quarry but has now been filled with water. It has beautiful cliffs and is a wonderful natural sanctuary for local wildlife. Soon after the creek exits the lake it joins with another tributary and continues southeast. Stony Creek flows under Philadelphia Pike and re enters Bellevue State Park on the Cauffiel Estate Branch of the park. This section of the Creek is also heavily forested and includes Fox Falls. As Stony creek begins to encroach on the Delaware River is enters a very short section where Stenkil Creeks banks become muddy. Then Stenkil Creek enters the Delaware River through Fox Point."

It seems to be original research that were not backed up by refs, and from my perspective is not of use to most readers, and I removed the info (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stoney_Creek_(Delaware)&oldid=1079397577). Many thanks for your help and advice. Cheers. VickKiang (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stoney Creek (Delaware), which was impounded to create this reservoir. Djflem (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:HEY or Merge to Stoney Creek (Delaware), which was impounded to create this reservoir.Djflem (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something other than delete, probably merge The article isn't that bad, the sources are marginal, information seems verifiable, a simple BEFORE search brings up hits mostly about fishing. The information isn't worth deleting even though whether it's a stand-alone article is a bit marginal (but probably justifiable under our geography guidelines.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines national under-19 football team results

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

Requesting deletion due to violating WP:NOTSTATS and also per consensus from other discussions for under-19 results which include this discussion, this one and this one. Also lacks the independent WP:RS coverage required to pass WP:GNG/WP:LISTN. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and AFD consensus; no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NOTSTATS.--Mvqr (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and the established consensus in the previous AFDs. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS Gabe114 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The encyclopedia is not a collection of WP:TRIVIA such as youth sports records, aka WP:NOTSTATS Jacona (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines national under-17 football team results

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

Per consensus at this AfD, this one, this one and also this one, this should be deleted as well. Clear violation of WP:NOTSTATS and topic does not meet WP:GNG/WP:LISTN as discussed before because youth football receives far less independent coverage and their players and there is no presumption of notability from playing at this level. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and AFD consensus; no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NOTSTATS.--Mvqr (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and the established consensus in the previous AFDs. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS Gabe114 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The encyclopedia is not the record-keeper for youth sports, aka WP:NOTSTATS Jacona (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beshir Imanov

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The original creator is sock of Elshad Iman who advertises in various wikis. Kadı Message 07:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Kadı Message 07:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Kadı Message 07:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the old days, a rank of general sufficed to make biographies inherently notable, but I think this is gone with the depreciation of WP:SOLDIER? No hits in GScholar/GBooks suggest either an issue with sources (coverage may in Cyrillic), or simply that he is notable. Current references are of low reliability. If we don't treat the rank of general as sufficient for notability, than this not likely to pass WP:NBIO unless better sources are found (if that happens, do ping me). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus, There is a positive correlation between the quality and number of sources and notability. No sources = No notability. Kind regards. Kadı Message 10:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which means that here we have very weak sources, which suggest very weak (insufficient) notability. I would vote delete except I am still under the influence of the old days where all generals were considered notable, and I'd like to hear from other editors familiar with this topic area that this is no longer a sufficient criteria to retain an article (please ping me if you want to do so, so I'll notice your argument). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus, WP:SOLDIER is an essay not a policy. Kadı Message 13:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that being a Hero of Socialist Labour meets WP:AWARD. Atchom (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AWARD isn't the correct article, anyway, the Hero of Socialist Labour has been given to about 21,000 people (per it's article) which makes it too common, awards have to to be more special (or of a higher order) to consider the recipient notable. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC and no other SNG apply. Just being a General doesn't make someone notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is Azerbaijani literature that proves that he is a major general of militia (USSR). It may pass in importance.--Samral (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RELIABLE Kadı Message 18:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A reliable source like AzTV has a radio program about him, and the man is an encyclopedist. Those who understand the Azerbaijani language will understand it if they listen to the radio broadcast. I would like to add that Elshad Iman is not blocked globally, this is his account - E.Imanoff, continues to edit in the Azerbaijani wiki. Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand Azerbaijani language. This is not an independent source as Elşad is the creator. Elshad Iman was using sock and advertising (PR), by the reason of this his accounts were globally locked. The stewards are assuming good faith that's why he isn't locked again. Kadı Message 11:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Enwiki admins, Araz Yaquboğlu banned in Commons for being sockpuppet of elshad iman. Kind regards, Kadı Message 19:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources appear to be sufficient for WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether the creator is a sock or not doesn't matter. I agree with User:Necrothesp that this passes WP:GNG. Atchom (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search reveals that the topic meets WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheEngine

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

Seems like it fails WP:GNG. Further information can be found at ru:TheEngine and ru:Skyfallen Entertainment. TheEngine on skyfallen.com « Ryūkotsusei » 04:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. « Ryūkotsusei » 04:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A1: No Context. Article has no information or sources at all that inform the reader what "TheEngine" is. Fails notability in general. No info found through original research that i conducted. Useless list page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 15:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is not a valid speedy deletion under A1 - There is enough information in the article to determine that TheEngine is a Russian made 3D Graphics engine. Anything that has sufficient context that you could find more information by googling is not "no context". No context is for an absolute lack of context whatsoever - for example, if the article merely said "TheEngine is an engine", that would likely be A1. Or if it said "TheEngine is Russian", or "He is a funny man, He drives a red car.", etc etc. casualdejekyll 22:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this isnt A1, But I cannot find any information on "TheEngine" on google. I apologize for my false judgement. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone can come up with sources that demonstrate notability. None are here now or appear to exist. And no, it does not qualify for speedy deletion because it does indeed have context. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Gabe114 (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This automatically fails WP:GNG. No sources (let alone any reliable ones), no external links, no thing to indicate any sort of nobility. All it is is just a dictionary-esque statement with a list of games that supposedly use this engine, even though nothing is cited to that fact. Heck, this article even neglects the individual or company that made the engine. Captain Galaxy 12:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any indication of notability to pass WP:GNG, and nothing to meet WP:NSOFT either. Jacona (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Ashmore

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, fails WP:NBIO OGLV (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. OGLV (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hopelessly fails NFOOTY. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found below, although I would advise against suggesting articles in rags like The Sun and The Daily Mail makes somebody notable... Giant Snowman 08:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails GNG. Foodie Soul (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to pass WP:BASIC for me as subject has received WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reputable, inter/national sources, including the BBC, The Times, Daily Mail, TalkSport, The Sun, etc. See the following sources: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. This, mind you, is all in addition to more routine coverage of signings, game reports, etc. which he's mentioned in as well. GauchoDude (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - someone who receives significant coverage from BBC and The Times is notable enough for an article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BASIC with the coverage mentioned by GauchoDude.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. BBC and Times articles are just a crime victim discussing the crimes. GauchoDude's other sources are either unreliable or fail to provide significant coverage of Ashmore. Dougal18 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this evaluation of the sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hasn't played in the EFL, notability not met. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 20:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG with the sources provided by GauchoDude. Alvaldi (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He isn't notable for his football career. A victim of crime needs to pass WP:CRIME and he fails that. Dougal18 (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's enough coverage of the abuse he's received to, along with an extensive non-league career, justify keeping this article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I really struggle with this one. The reason why he got coverage wasn't because of his football career. Reliable sources do cover his actual footballing career, but as clear run of the mill coverage either by the club or as a transfer blurb, ie the GNG would not be there if not for the flurry of news coverage. If NFOOTY were still in force we wouldn't assume he had GNG-qualifying coverage. So the question is whether he's notable for the flurry of press coverage he did receive. I'm more comfortable keeping because the coverage of him wasn't because of one specific incident but was spread over years by multiple reliable publications, but can understand both sides here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's clear NFOOTY isn't met. I'm not finding consensus on GNG. Nor has the NCRIME aspect been discussed sufficiently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a bunch of purely football related sources to the article [44][45][46][47][48][49] Alvaldi (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this one is clearly more than routine sports reporting. This, combined with the BBC and Talksport coverage, make this a clear and obvious GNG pass. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NSPORT: Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline. Ashmore passes the WP:GNG by the abundance of WP:SIGCOV sources identified above. gidonb (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per sources listed above and in the article. Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - just about passes the GNG with enough sources. There's enough coverage there to pass even if he isn't especially notable. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough citations to satisfy WP:NSPORT. Jeni Wolf (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of protected areas of Colorado. ✗plicit 11:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of federal lands in Colorado

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

The majority of this page's content is exactly duplicated at List of protected areas in Colorado, as content from this article was copied to create the protected areas article without any attribution. The two pages were then apparently edited in parallel in a long series of edits by Buaidh. To resolve the content fork I suggest redirecting the federal lands article to the protected areas article and fixing all of the section hatnotes and redirects that target the duplicated content at the federal lands page. Even though the protected areas page is the duplicate, the state content in the protected areas article is worth keeping, meaning that article is the one that should stay. The only content of the federal lands page not at the proected areas page is already duplicated and redirected to elsewhere (in sections of the Colorado article). A {{copied}} template should be added to the talk page to document where the content originally came from. I can do the cleanup if redirecting is the consensus. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Colorado. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect after any needed merge. Don't think such an obvious duplicate needs much discussion. Reywas92^Talk 15:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas. CharlesWain (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A simple Redirect to List of protected areas in Colorado. The proposal is quite strong and the issue quite evident. -The Gnome (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Marx

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

He has a lot of credits to his name, but I couldn't find any sourcing. Statements of membership in Grand Ole Opry are greatly exaggerated; he's just a backing musician and not a member. De-prodded because he played on a Grammy nominated album, but he himself was not the nominee. The sources are all WP:PRIMARY or only mention him very fleetingly. A search of The Tennesseean on Newspapers.com only found passing mentions or different people with the same name. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to draft. My first inclination would be to move to draft to see whether sources can be improved, but I ultimately think that this should be kept. The subject was the guitarist for a Grammy-winning CD, "Songs From The Neighborhood". In other words, not just a nominated album, and not just a backing musician on that project. BD2412 T 17:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Kerry himself did not win the Grammy, though. He was just one of many hired hands on the album. And there is still literally zero sourcing. This article about the album winning the Grammy doesn't even mention him. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why my preference is to move to draft. BD2412 T 19:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed my !vote from "move to draft" to "keep or move to draft" based on the Dan Daley reference, which I have now substantially added to the article. BD2412 T 16:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I must admit that the article has become quite promotional from when I created it in 2014 but that is an easy fix. However, notability is there IMO, according to WP:NMUSICIAN (criteria 6). You can also find sources in Newspapers.com if you don't just isolate it to the Tenneseean. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is one of literally hundreds of backing musicians who back more notable acts on the opry. That doesn't make him notable in his own right. Also I narrowed it to The Tennesseean because he's a Nashville based musician. That they gave him no ink whatsoever despite his job being in Nashville is quite telling. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are not hundreds of backing musicians at the Opry. There is the Opry Band, of which he is a mender and the director according to Billboard. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the other members have biographies six miles long bragging about every person they've rubbed elbows with, though? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I follow the logic of the WP:OSE argument above. We don't base notability on others. Also, if you read above, the "six miles long" biography looks like WP:FANCRUFT from the last eight years since its creation. There is an easier solution to FANCRUFT than AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the fancruft does not magically make sources appear. So far I've seen not a shred of evidence that there are sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have said that. However, I provided one above and told you where the others exist for a WP:BEFORE. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any point where you proved that sources exist. A search for "Kerry Marx" on newspapers.com yields literally nothing but false positives for articles that have the words "kerry" and "marx" nearby, or the OCR misreading "Perry" as "Kerry". Can you find even one hit on newspapers.com that is valid? Because I sure as hell couldn't. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will make a list now, but not sure where the false positives are coming from. Are you isolating the full name?--CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First result was the Tennesseean actually, showing he was a member of TNN's Prime Time Country band. Here is also the Tennessean confirming him as part of the Opry house band (not just a backup musician). --CNMall41 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This one is kind of funny so thought I would add it here. Apparently he was in a band called Wax Beans??--CNMall41 (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

word with Johnny Cash. I think if you isolate the name the sources should appear instead of "literally nothing but false positives." --CNMall41 (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I put "Kerry Marx" in quotes, and it still kept giving me things like "I doubt Barack Obama and John Kerry have Marx or Hegel on the brain" or the OCR mistaking "Perry" for "Kerry". Among the sources you cited, though: the first two just name-drop him for less than a sentence in the context of greater things; the "Wax Beans" one may not even be the same guy; and the fourth is a concert review that again, doesn't even dedicate a full sentence to the fact that he exists. Those are all trivial coverage at best, not significant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange with Newspapers.com but I get that also from time to time depending on what I am searching for. Trivial or significant, he meets WP:NMUSIC #6 in my opinion as verified by the sources provided. Again, just my opinion based on interpretation of the guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: I have found one book cite, Dan Daley, Nashville's Unwritten Rules-Inside The Business of Country Music (The Overlook Press, 1998), p. 268-70, ISBN 0879518898, available from the Internet Archive library, which has a few paragraphs on the subject, mostly describing his early experience as a touring musician and session musician. BD2412 T 01:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still remain unconvinced that any of the sources brought forth are significant, third-party coverage. Pinging @Caldorwards4:, @Hog Farm:, @Sammi Brie:, @Martin4647:, @ChrisTofu11961: for their expertise. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Redirect. Per WP:NMUSIC, an artist "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria". Since the artist fails WP:GNG due to passing mentions, and it does not fufill more than one criteria, the topic is non-notable. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 00:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify: TPH makes a strong case for the current article having no proof of notability (which I agree with) and that he made quite the thorough search and came up empty. Unless a list of good sources (and not one-off mentions like that Billboard magazine page above) is found, I'm very unconvinced by the keep arguments (Especially BD2412's; you can't just assume something like that makes a person notable without coverage backing it up). QuietHere (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @QuietHere: I apologize for any confusion resulting from my late change of !vote. I initially voted, as you did, with a preference to send this to draft. I then "changed my !vote from "move to draft" to "keep or move to draft" based on the Dan Daley reference", which as I indicated elsewhere in the discussion contains several paragraphs about Kerry Marx, and not a one-off mention. BD2412 T 15:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Oh no, that's my mistake. I read over the discussion before responding but forgot about your vote change and made an assumption during a second skim. And indeed there is quite a bit in that book. That alone is not enough to save the article for sure, especially given how close we'd be to violating WP:ONESOURCE, but it is promising that we've even got that much. I'm definitely leaning more toward draftify now, but we're still gonna need more than that before I'm convinced. QuietHere (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. The sources are simply and clearly not enough to establish independent notability: A Billboard text list mentioning Marx once; articles such as this about some other artist -in this case Kalisa Ewing- that mention Marx once, as a backing musician (ah, the fate of session men!); books in a similar vein, such as Another Song to Sing: The Recorded Repertoire of Johnny Cash and Nashville's Unwritten Rules; and our subject's own website. Since it is evident there's a fair number of contributors keen on improving on the proofs of the subject's notability I'd suggest a generous move to draftify the text and allow it to pass another, future audition. -The Gnome (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's a majority, but no consensus, for deletion. The "keep" arguments are not meritless in view of MOS:DABMENTION and therefore cannot be discounted. Sandstein 13:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Reed

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

Disambiguation pages with no topics do disambiguate. There are no topics on Wikipedia linked here by name, so this page isn't necessary. Mikeblas (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are two "Simon Reed"s mentioned in WP, both plausible searches. Page would be useful to someone searching for a person by this name. I have created redirects. MB 22:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read MOS:DABREDIR; I don't think the use of redirects are appropraite here, so I've reverted your change. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, disambiguates nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Each of these men would merit a redirect from their name to the article where they are mentioned. As their names are the same, a dab page is appropriate. PamD 08:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see MOS:DABREDIR. In the case of the ship captain, there's just one sentence about the name including an acknolwedgement that the name might not in fact be "Simon Reed". For the announcer: The Eurosport article contains just a sentence about his firing and no other contribution to the series. The Dancing on Ice article contains only a parenthetical reference. I don't think this person is notable enough to warrant an article in either instance, and therefore doesn't deserve a disambiguation page -- particularly when taking MOS:DABREDIR and the rest of MOS:DAB into consideration. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added a third name to the list. If not kept, perhaps a merge to Simon Read is in order. BD2412 T 00:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see MOS:DABREDIR. Non-notable entities don't need entries on DAB pages. Since this page consists only of non-notable entries, it should be deleted. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Mikeblas: Please see WP:DABMENTION: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader". BD2412 T 19:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @BD2412: yep; it gives an example of a section being referenced by a DAB. The target articles don't even have a full sentence about this name. No additional value is provided to readers because full text search of the encyclopedia will reveal hits in the articles: FTS results. Since this DAB doesn't include any notable subjects and isn't useful to readers, it should be deleted. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not so sure that's the meaning of the word "mention". According to our dictionary, "mention" is relevantly defined as a noun as: "A speaking or notice of anything, usually in a brief or cursory manner. Used especially in the phrase make mention of", and as a verb as "To make a short reference to something". I don't see a definition of the word "mention" requiring a "full sentence about this name". I would also defer to the expertise on the subject of... myself, having just crossed the 1.9 million edits threshold, probably half of those being in the area of creating disambiguation pages, fixing disambiguation links, and taking part in the establishment of disambiguation policies and guidelines. BD2412 T 22:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Not even sure how to respond to this. I'm trying to assume good faith, but intimidation isn't appropriate here, and the condescention was bad enough. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You have missed the main point, which is the first several sentences of my comment. The dictionary definition of the word "mention" covers the uses that are present on the page. Therefore, these are in fact "mentions", as intended by the guideline, and are sufficient to keep the page. BD2412 T 00:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - it gives an example of a section being referenced by a DAB: No. MOS:DABMENTION gives an example of Maggie Anderson being mentioned in Brigadoon—there's not a dedicated section about her, and the entire page has but two mentions of her.—Bagumba (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current version does not have any redirects. A relevant guideline is MOS:DABMENTION:
If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader.
A question would be whether the existing entries "provide value to the reader".—Bagumba (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This version of the page should be reverted, as it violates MOS:DABNOENTRY. "Lady Lovibond" is not amibugous with "Simon Read", for example. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But Simon Reed, mentioned in Lady Lovibond, is an ambiguous term. I have no comment if it provides value per DABMENTION, but your comment is otherwise uninformed. —Bagumba (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is easy, and I only say that in order not to say "this is insane!" We have a disambiguation page that disambiguates nothing. (Next up, an article about a comet listed as a biography?) Dear colleagues, the sky is blue. -The Gnome (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't often use wp:IAR as a justification - but a disambiguation page that doesn't actually link any pages it's disambiguating is simply annoying if I was searching for Simon Reed. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are links, it's just that none on them are on the left side, but on the right side per MOS:DABMENTION. —Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, disambig page with no actual links. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No lynx. In all seriousness, this page is a list of things people might be looking for if they type "Simon Reed" into the search bar. Is that not exactly what the point of a disambiguation page is? This serves both a helpful and encyclopedic function. casualdejekyll 19:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- When all is said and done, I would merge this with Simon Read, though. BD2412 T 23:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The entries all link to articles where a Simon Reed is mentioned, but none of them are in-depth coverage at all. As such, I don't view "Simon Reed" as a likely search term for any of the entries. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hazrat Ishaan (title)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hazrat Ishaan (title)

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

Not a single WP:RS in the article. It is riddled with WP:OR and non-WP:RS POV added primarily by multiple blocked socks. One beguns to ask if this 'Hazrat Ishaan' is even a thing. The article itself was made by a user banned for sockpuppetry, which is most likely the same person as the IPs who have recently made loads of edits to the article.

(I accidentally made a 2nd nomination, mb).

EDIT: My bad, there actually are a few WP:RS... which doesn't support the listed information, nor makes a single mention of this 'Hazrat Ishaan'.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Poetry, Royalty and nobility, Islam, Afghanistan, Iran, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that this article should not be deleted as it has a very significant and important history.

The Hazrat Ishaans had tremendous influence as Mughal and Afghan Princes and even in presdnt time I have seen videos of family members that are well respected. I can put these sources in.

Concerning the sources, I think that they are actually serious ones. Sure there are some that may require a library journey, but reading about these works like the Maqamat Mahmudiya, they are serious hiatorical sources from the second Hazrat Ishaan Moinuddin Hadi and archived in Indian universities. The work of Damrel is a new Duke university dissertation at Proquest, literally metioning for example the "Az Aabr Khist" scene.

All in all this artivle should not be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:A973:CB14:1:2:18E3:B2C0 (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this article must not be deleted, because it has a great significance in historical and in comparison to the Agha Khan to present time. I do not see any problems with the sources. Those availabole actually support what is written in this article. Please do not delete this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.193.91 (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heavily sympathise for HistoryofIran in this regard. This article is rife with original research, personal religious beliefs stated from a first-person point of view, and self-published sources as citations. I am actively working on removing these explicit violations of Wikipedias policy by the creators of this page so that this page meets the standards of Wikipedia. 0xP4R4D0X (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More socks ^^. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, it seems this article has mostly been edited by socks. 0xP4R4D0X (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HistoryofIran for your edits to the page and removing the frivolous citations/claims. The page is considerably closer aligned to the Wikipedia policy and is one step closer to meeting the rigorous standards of Wikipedia. 0xP4R4D0X (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks any kind of verification from reliable sources. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OR. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:VER. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like some discussion on the changes in the article since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is personal work with entirely inadequate sourcing. And the odor of miscreant socks does not help in the least. -The Gnome (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some "Keep" comments here that are not bolded and references have been added though whether or not they are sufficient I guess will be decided by the closer here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced by the sources that have been added. This should find a short mention at Hazrat Ishaan under a section, "Legacy" (if added with reliable sources supporting the information). ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 00:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biological hermeneutics

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

This appears to be a neologism. The article went through the Articles for Creation process and was approved for creation in 2017. This coincides with the only use of the term that I've been able to find in the sense used in the article, an event at Chetam's Library in mid-2017 entitled "Biological Hermeneutics at Chetham's Library". Now, I've no problem with the inclusion of the topic in Wikipedia, but the term used here is not a correct one (I'll get to that in a minute), and I do not believe a term has been coined for exactly this discipline. The closest I've been able to track down would be something around (still a new term) biology of the technosphere. There is an equivalent of microbiology of the technosphere→Microbiomes of the built environment; however, the concept included in the article up for deletion here is not restricted to microorganisms. I've not found a corresponding term which would cover macromes of the built environment either, which would include rat infestation in the sewers of New York City, for instance. So, in closing, I'm arguing to delete based on this being a neologism for a discipline that is currently ill defined in the round, but aspects of which have been described and have concept representation in Wikipedia.

Now, I said I'd get back to why the title is the incorrect term. Hermeneutics is first a philosophical discipline, much of which devolves to an information science related to the interpretation of symbols and symbology. In fact, a form of biological hermeneutics is the study of the interpretation of the DNA code, and there are terms like "biohermeneutics" and "biosemiotics" that explore this area; see "The Role of Hermeneutics in Biology", for instance. I think that continued retention of this article title associated with this article content confuses an admittedly transdisciplinary physical science with a domain of philosophy and information science.

Thanks for thinking this through. The reason I landed on this page (and edited it) is that I've been looking for articles that have not been substantively edited in several years, in this case no work being done since its creation in 2017. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Biology. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be one of the many, many neologisms floating about the academic literature that has had no significant uptake. Indeed, as used in the article, the term appears to apply to a single project, where an artist and a scientist collaborated on reading and interpreting the microbiological detritus that had gathered on a 300-year-old copy of Ovid's Metamorphoses [50]. That project was on display at Chetham's Library, as mentioned in the nomination. We could in principle write about such work in an encyclopedic way, but this article isn't it. XOR'easter (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The text boldly asserts that biological hermeneutics "came into being after the development of the microscope during the seventeenth century", though, of course, no 17th, 18th, or 19th century source offers anything similar to that description. The very term "Hermeneutics", for starters, is a purely 20th-century theoretical offspring. As to the contested article, it constitutes almost entirely personal work, with its creator and main contributor being a kamikaze account. And it's no surprise that the harvest of sources is so wanting: We come across papers about "biological interpretation", such as this; Wikipedia mirrors such as this; works, such as this, about something else, in this case "the author in literary theory", which mention the term but once; art shows that use the term, such as in this notice; a book about "environmental hermeneutics," a field of study, the author writes, that's also called "ecological hermeneutics", "ecohermeneutics," "hermeneutics of landscape" and "biological hermeneutics"; and so on. There is almost nothing upon which one can build an article. The way ahead is probably a redirect to Philosophy of biology, simple and pure (no moving original texts). -The Gnome (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Sloane, N. J. A. (ed.). "Sequence A292623 (Number of median graphs on n nodes)". The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. OEIS Foundation.

[1]