Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 9

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< October 08 October 10 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All India School of Management and Information Technology

All India School of Management and Information Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From what I can gather via the article and a fruitless BEFORE, this isn't a school so much as a company that teaches web design and/or a for-profit school. No indication found it meets N:ORG, which seems to apply as this isn't a school. Star Mississippi 23:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Menotti Lerro. As an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Manifesto of Arts

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

Fails WP:GNG, and I couldn't find any appropriate WP:SNG. No independent reliable sources appear to exist in English or Italian. What sources do exist consist entirely of press releases, and opinion articles written by Menotti Lerro. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for letting me know. In my opinion this article is about an important, innovative and niche topic. I think it worth to keep it and wait for possible relevant developments. The Manifesto has been also published in magazines and monographs and there are critical articles about it in the magazine "Riscontri" and the magazine "Clandestino" (both already inserted in the this article as reliabe reference). If possible I ask you to keep it but of course I will accept your decision. Best wishes.Gingeksace (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This article on a artist/poet's manifesto is part of a walled-garden of numerous promotional articles surrounding Menotti Lerro and his various projects, all heavily edited by COI editors. The article should be deleted as WP:PROMO, and it does not meet WP:GNG. Much of the sourcing on this article and the walled-garden of articles lead back to primary sources by Lerro and his former teacher/colleague Andrew Mangham, his publisher, book sales sites, press releases, calendar listings, blogs, user-submitted content and the like. If the article is not deleted, some of the content could be merged with the Menotti Lerro article along with the rest of the WP:WALLEDGARDEN consisting of: Cultural Pyramid of Cilento, Empathism, Cilento Poetry Prize, Il Dottor Faust, Donna Giovanna, l'ingannatrice di Salerno, Augusto Orrel: memorie d'orrore e poesia, and 2084: Il potere dell'immortalità nelle città del dolore. For context on this walled garden, see this:[1]. Netherzone (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Netherzone, please try to consider that these articles I did are not promotional: they are just the opera of a poet and scholar who spent all his life studying and working to create peaces of literature. I thought it would have been nice after so much work to put it on Wikipedia and I thought It was a more good job to link them as possible (I guess it is what you call Walled-garden). There are monographs about his work from more academic teachers (see Francesco D'Episcopo two volumes and Andrew Mangham; there is a thesis dissertation discussed from University of Palermo, there are several articles in magazines (also very relevant magazines as Nuovi Argomenti, and other books: see Sara Cudia "Menotti Lerro. L'innovazione del mito", Maria Rosaria La Marca "Gli occhi sulla critica". In addition there are first prizes and presentations in places of high culture: National libraries both in Italy and abroad as special guest. I am not sure if all my articles meet the necessary criteria to be on Wikipedia but please it is not necessary to stress words like "promotional" or to search for old proposal to have the work of this author on WP and mix that with my articles. In my opinion, I just think It is pretty nice and honest work of literature, appreciated by critics and people and often innovative. I invite you to be more comprehensive with it. Thanks a lot. Best wishes. Gingeksace (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone Could you please provide a detailed source analysis to substantiate your walled graden claim for the rest of us. Listing the sources and vaguely waving them off as a walled garden doesn't give us enough context to evaluate independence, and given the language barrier of Italian language sources it would be helpful to have it spelled out where the exact conflicts of interest lie for each source. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 4meter4! Here is my source analysis below. Please check out the link I posted above as well for the backstory on the walled garden (or if you prefer, "suite of connected articles") For context on this walled garden, see this:[2].}}. BTW, I know we do not know each other, but I want to assure you I'm not a drive-by !voter at AfDs, and I do not "vaguely wave" things off. I'm a serious good-faith participant and have engaged in earnest with the article creator to try to clean things up in this "suite of articles". Best regards,
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.infocilento.it/2022/08/02/vii-edizione-del-premio-nazionale-cilento-poesia-a-salento/ No Press release and event listing, clearly marked Comunicato Stampa, which means Press Release Yes town website No it's a press release authored by the artist (note wording "we will also talk about Empathism" a term coined by the artist himself ✘ No
https://riscontri.net/2021/02/22/empatismo-scuola-empatica-movimento-letterario-artistico-filosofico-e-culturale-sorto-in-italia-nel-2020/ No Authored by Menotti Lerro, content is from the Headquarters of Contemporary Center of the Arts ”, its top management. (A Menotti Lerro project), listing the signers of the manifesto authored by Lerro ~ The artist/poet's publisher/magazine is RIscontri, this is book sales promotion. The site states that "If you are an author and wish to promote your work, send your application for “In the library“, our literary report column." No Reiteration of Lerro's work; likely user-generated content, as he is listed as the "Initiator" ✘ No
https://riscontri.net/2021/02/22/la-scuola-empatica-intervista-a-a-menotti-lerro/ No Interview authored by Menotti Lerro No Primary source, the interview is filled with content like "my declarations" have resulted in the manifesto, "I refer in the "New Manifesto", etc. No It's him talking about himself. The short intro does not contain editorial content. ✘ No
https://www.infocilento.it/2020/11/30/in-libreria-lantologia-della-scuola-empatica-movimento-artistico-letterario-con-epicentro-nel-cilento/ ~ Seems to be taken from Press release, illustrated with a page from Lerro's manifesto/movement, containing a list of people who signed his "Manifesto" Yes town website ~ Soem editorial content but a reiteration of various press releases and the content of the manifesto itself and his "Empathic" movement. ~ Partial
https://www.milanotoday.it/eventi/accademia-di-brera-convegno-nuovo-manifesto-sulle-arti-.html No This is an event poster published by Menotti Lerro Yes The source itself a news source, It's an event listing that clearly states that it is a "new poster on Lerro" for an event occurring on a specific date, that includes Menotti Lerro and his sister Lucrezia Lerro and other speakers No Event announcement ✘ No
https://bookriot.com/literary-movements-youve-never-heard-of/ No Paid promotional content: "This content contains affiliate links. When you buy through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission." No Blog? Clickbait, user-generated content, "We create content-driven communities around niche interests that delight fans and celebrate their diversity. Sometimes we are serious and sometimes we’re silly. Some of our contributors are pros. Many of them aren’t." ~ one paragraph in the article ✘ No
https://www.affaritaliani.it/culturaspettacoli/empatia-806174.html No Written by Menotti Lerro, clearly states: L'opinione de Menotti Lerrohttps://www.affaritaliani.it/culturaspettacoli/empatia-806174.html No Self-describe by Lerro as a "new great literary-philosophical movement" No This is Menotti Lerro writing about himself and his manifesto, and "movement" ✘ No
https://www.cilentonotizie.it/dettaglio/48144/la-fondazione-giambattista-vico-aderisce-al-movimento-empatico-di-menotti-lerro/ Yes Town website Yes town website No Press release announcement/ calendar listing for Menotti Lerro's art center ✘ No
https://www.wikipoesia.it/wiki/La_Scuola_Empatica No Wiki site, user submitted/generated content No Basically a wikipedia-like mirror site ? a web host for his manifesto, this is not journalism about him or his manifesto ✘ No
https://www.rivistaclandestino.com/nuovo-manifesto-sulle-arti-di-menotti-lerro-e-antonello-pelliccia/ ~ An event listing by his publisher/distributor announcing the opening of a cafe at Lerro's art center ? Authored by Menotti Lerro No Written by Lerro, his manifesto ✘ No
Error: a source must be specified ? Unknown
https://www.rivistaclandestino.com/scuola-empatica-genesi-e-sviluppo-di-una-nuova-corrente-artistico-letteraria/ ~ Largely taken from Lerro's writings. ? No byline ? uncertain ? Unknown
https://poesia.corriere.it/2019/10/21/domani-a-edimburgo-menotti-lerro-terra-una-lettura-di-sue-poesie-e-presentera-il-nuovo-manifesto-delle-arti-gia-lanciato-in-italia-mesi-fa/ ? unverifiable, behind a paywall ? behind a paywall ? unverifiable, behind a paywall ? Unknown
Lerro, Menotti (2020). La Scuola Empatica. Borgomanero: Ladolfi Publishing No Written by Lerro ? primary source, written by the person who wrote the manifesto ? ? written by the artist/poet himself ✘ No
https://poesia.corriere.it/2021/02/25/i-cento-della-scuola-empatica-nuovo-movimento-per-le-arti-fondato-da-menotti-lerro-un-libro-con-il-manifesto-e-le-testimonianze/ ? unverifiable, behind a paywall ? unverifiable ? behind a paywall ? Unknown
https://cultura.comune.salerno.it/web/eventi.aspx?url=giornate-europee-del-patrimonio-2021-empatismo No Event calendar listing, from press release ? press release calendar listing No event listing ✘ No
https://www.corrieredisalerno.it/103675/turismo/eventi/giornate-europee-del-patrimonio-nel-weekend-a-salerno.html No Event calendar listing ? n/a event listing No event calendar ✘ No
https://www.nuovairpinia.it/2021/09/24/musei-aperti-ad-avellino-e-salerno-sabato-sera-e-domenica/ ~ Event listing for a press conference by Lerro, ? auto_awesome Showing translation for Nuova Irpinia - Il giornale delle zone interne Nuova Irpinia Annuncio Pubblicitario Translate instead Nuova Irpinia - Il giornale delle zone interneNuova Irpinia Annuncio Pubblicitario 82 / 5,000 Translation results star_border Nuova Irpinia - The newspaper of the inland areas Nuova Irpinia Advertisement No Event listing - seems to be an advertisement/event listing at a local church ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Netherzone (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Netherzone, I do not understand why do you mix old things and discussions with my articles...
(Does this author earned a "stigma" forever because of past situations not related with my articles? That you are more times suggesting to check happened 6/7 years ago and I see those articles were already deleted... (Maybe, indeed, it is not the case to get now that to prove it is all one situation...).
By the way, in the last years the author grow a lot (monographs have been published about him and magazines guest articles about him too) and maybe now we should consider just article by article without mixing everything. I am sure you are in good faith but please consider I am in good faith too. I create articles thinking there were enough requirements (I am not so expert as you to understand it...); Maybe I was wrong and I will accept it, but I just ask you do not talk of "promotional", "payments", "walled-garden" (I even do not know what a walled garden is...). I just create articles thinking there were requirements, thats all. Please just help when possible to save the article, to improve it, or ask for deletion if it is not possible to save it... It is not a problem, but please do not look too far in my simple and honest collaboration to WP.
Thanks a lot. All the best! Gingeksace (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gingeksace if there are reliable sources that are secondary to Lerro and/or Pelliccia, could you please provide them? Prior to nominating this article, I attempted to search for sources about this manifesto, and all I could find in English and Italian were either press releases or opinion articles by Lerro. Those sources do not meet the criteria of our general notability guideline because they are not independent from Lerro and/or Pelliccia. Monographs could be extremely helpful for this, if they were published in a reputable research journal and subject to peer review as part of that process. The magazine guest articles might be helpful, if they were written by subject-matter experts and again are independent from Lerro and/or Pelliccia.
However as things stand right now, I cannot find any such sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sideswipe9th ok Thanks. It's fine.
Anyway, I thought for example they were good example of reliable sources, aren't they?:
They seems to be experts and indipendent from Lerro...
Regards. Gingeksace (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gingeksace we have had numerous conversations about your COI, and the walled-garden of articles on your talk page, on my talk page and on various article talk pages. You had also agreed that it was best to fold (redirect, selectively merge) several of the articles into the Menotti Lerro article, as seen here:[3]. There are many other examples but I'd rather not post a huge wall-of-text. I'm surprised you have changed your mind about that plan. I've been patiently working with you in good faith and I've spent a lot of time cleaning up some of the promotional wording. I have never disputed Lerro's notability, although it is curious he does not have an article on Italian Wikipedia. IMO, all the articles you have created about Lerro's various projects except perhaps Empathism should be folded into the Menotti Lerro article. Perhaps this metaphor will resonate with you: think of Menotti Lerro as a planet, and the other articles are like moons or satellites orbiting around the planet. It is not necessary to have an article on each of those satellites. Does that make sense? Netherzone (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Netherzone, I have not changed my mind. Just trying to understand better the mechanisms... I have only said I am not making any "promotion" and I had not really idea about what a walled garden was... And I have tried to show what in my opinion could be considered reliable (I repeat, just to learn if I am right or not, not to force it...). By the way I have been invited to discuss it therefore I thouth It was good to do it...
As I always said, I accept your decisions: I know you are more expert than me so I trust your judgment (but I like to learn...).
Regards. Gingeksace (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gingekscace, Regarding the sources you have kindly list above, unfortunately none of them are independent coverage. The authors of these citations are all affiliated with Lerro and have all are signed "Empathic Masters" who have joined Lerro's Empathism movement spelled out in Lerro's Manifesto[4].
1) Written by Franco Mussida, a member of the Empathism movement founded by Lerro and a signed member of the Manifesto by Lerro. - Not independent.
2) Blog post - user generated content, written by Ottavio Rossani who is a signed member of the Manifesto as well as a member of Empathism, both of which are Lerro projects. - Not independent.
3) Written by Mauro Afro Borella, a signed member of the Manifesto and Empathism - Not independent.
4.) Blog post Carlo Di Legge's Blog - he's also a signed member of the Manifesto and Empathism. - Not independent.
5.) This was written by Francesco D'Episcopo, who is a signed member of Empathism. - Not Independent.
6.) written by Diana Nese, a signed member of the Manifesto and Empathism. - Not independent. Netherzone (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! It is nice for me to understand it for example...
All the best Gingeksace (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gingeksace, I appreciate your patience and willingness to learn. Netherzone (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZYN!

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

Extent of notability unclear, few references available online, practically the entire article is unsourced. Article on German Wiki isn't any better. - Mooonswimmer 23:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist–Leninist Front of the Peoples of Spain

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

I'm not an expert on finding sources, especially for more obscure European parties, but I can't really seem to find anything that makes this party notable. It seems to be a failure of WP:NORG to me. TartarTorte 23:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smita Saravade

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

Fails WP:NACTOR  and WP:GNG ( One Source The Times of India [5] ) PravinGanechari (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are more sources in other languages, please provide them. ZanciD (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are opinions to Keep this article but no reliable sources brought to the discussion yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hide N Seek

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, as the content of cited sources, despite being in big-name Nigerian publications, are limited to unbylined, routine pre-release PR coverage and should not be considered in assessing notability. Despite the lush prose these sources use to describe the film's impending success, I was unable to find any trace of independent coverage in the form of film reviews, even from the same papers promoting it pre-release (although the search is admittedly made much more complicated by the existence of other films by this or similar titles, and inconsistency on the part of cited sources as to whether it's "and" or "N". signed, Rosguill talk 21:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian American Congress

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

Non-notable organization Mooonswimmer 21:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Signal Alliance Technology Holding

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

WP:ADMASQ, references are to churnalism or to 404 or server errors. Fails WP:NCORP, certainly as presented here. Query UPE. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Direct Connect (protocol). Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Direct Connect

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

Insufficient sourcing found to establish notability. This was the only plausibly acceptable source I could find. Previous PROD and redirection contested by a single-purpose account. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. This is more clear-cut than the numbers suggest; if the sources provided don't mention the subject, then the keep !votes based on them cease to carry weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Balkhara

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

This fringe theory appears to be so fringe as to have never even had a mention in mainstream scholarship. Verification has been lacking since 2008, and this looks unlikely to be solved. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- Even if it is pseudo-history (not pseudoscientology - whatever that is), the list of sources and further reading listed is sufficient to show that this was widely discussed. It may indeed be utter rubbish (I do not know), but if it has been discussed that much, we need an article to explain that it is rubbish and why. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peterkingiron: To be clear, it has not been established that any of the sources provided even mention any "Kingdom of Balkhara". None of the three citations with actual links (2, 3 and 4), even mention the name "Balkhara", neither do the other two linked alleged sources below that. I would note that none of the other books listed as potential sources mention any relevant page numbers or chapters either, so it is not clearly established or verifiable that any of these sources mention the subject. As it stands there is not a single readily accessible source provided on this page that demonstrably verifies even the name of the page, let alone its contents. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As far as I can tell from the sources, there is no mention of this theory in any of them. Clear violation of WP:NFRINGE because there are no independent sources that discuss it. I admittedly relied on translate for the non-english sources. There may be scope for noting the theory in another article like Bulgar but I have my doubts because it may be so fringe that, per WP:DUE, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Jtrrs0 (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peterkingiron. WCMemail 14:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wee Curry Monster, as the nominator has pointed out and as far as I could confirm, none of the sources actually discuss or even the topic of the article so they don't support its notability. I am happy to be corrected if you have found something in the sources that I missed, but I don't see a reason why the sources actually support keeping the article when they might as well be a random series of links. Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wee Curry Monster: Yes, I am also confused. I left the list of sources on the article so that people could perform their own WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST checks, but it seems like that may have been a mistake, since the long list of sources is clearly misleading people. To be absolutely clear, none of the sources demonstrably even mention the subject or even just the name "Balkhara". There is no evidence the theory is seriously discussed, let alone to a significant degree. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've now thoroughly scoured the sources and what we're left with is exactly two dubious and fairly unreliable looking web sources making passing references to the ideas in question, along with five allegedly connected Bulgarian language sources in further reading and a final source in further reading that appears to be a self-published piece of work in Wikisource by Lyubomir Ivanov. Overall, we are left with an utter absence of verifiable reliable, secondary sourcing on the details of this fringe theory, and nothing near the multiple reliable sources needed to establish notability. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Apcbg: is a well respected and long term contributor to Wikipedia, personal attacks in a deletion discussion is unhelpul. If you mention an editor it is only right you should ping them as they have a right to reply. WCMemail 09:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for for moderating your comment [11]. WCMemail 10:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of railway stations in Haryana. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kinana railway station

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

This article should be redirected to List of railway stations in Haryana, where the station is listed (it is not discussed anywhere else on Wikipedia). I am unable to find anything other than timetables regarding the station, which falls short of meeting WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. I initially PRODed it, however it was contested as apparently railway articles are somewhat controversial. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect without prejudice to recreation when sourcing is available - it almost certainly exists in a local language (probably Hindi or Haryanvi) and/or offline resources. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. This can be restored if sourcing is identified (I don't expect it will be, but you never know), but contesting the redirect without identifying even 1 source that might suggest a standalone article is justified is poor practice. This feels like contesting redirection for no good reason besides creating more bureaucracy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Garuda3, who contested the PROD and is otherwise uninvolved with the article, said that 'station articles are often controversial so this is best taken to afd if it is to be deleted'. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quite familiar with this user, who is very strongly against any sort of deletion of anything train station related. That's a valid opinion, but not how I interpret policy and precedent on this issue. We had an entire RfC which after extensive discussion and participation firmly established train stations have no inherent notability and must stand on their own merits, but that hasn't stopped a few editors from trying to claim that a station existing is enough to justify a standalone article even if there's no sourcing. The general agreement post train station RfC is that permastubs like this with little to no sourcing available are best merged/redirected into the article for the train line they are on, as a train station is at least a plausible search term and it makes sense to cover it on Wikipedia, just not in a standalone stub. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with you on this. I think this editor may need to be told that there was consensus that train stations must abide by notability guidelines, and contesting PRODs just causes extra bureaucracy. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that in almost all cases the consensus with what to do with railway stations that don't demonstrate individual notability is to merge and/or redirect not delete so it is absolutely correct to remove prods. Additionally, it is frequently controversial whether a given station does or does not demonstrate individual notability (although not in this case) and PROD is only intended for non-controversial deletions. Anyone is explicitly free to deprod any article for any reason, so the editor in question here is not doing anything wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, contesting the PROD was fine. Following up to contest the WP:BLAR without otherwise providing sources is where this gets into WP:TROUT territory. signed, Rosguill talk 14:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I think about it and remember what PROD actually is, this makes sense. I didn't know that you can redirect without consensus with WP:BLAR. Thank you Rosguill and Thryduulf, and while I am here, I am voting Redirect per nom. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 02:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a perfect world, we'd have an editor here who reads Hindi and could figure out definitively if there's much in the way of sourcing for these stations. Unfortunately we don't, so we have to do the best we can with the information we can find (or lack thereof, in this case). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antifaust

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

Fails WP:NFILM as no sources I can find discuss this to any significant extent, with the exception of the interview source which is essentially a Q&A pre-arranged non-independent interview. Translating the provided sources do not demonstrate this is a notable film. The fact all known copies were considered lost for many years until 2021 indicates this had no lasting impact, while other sources simply discuss the finding of the tape as news. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zappio tram stop

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

Just a run of the mill tram stop. These are generally not notable, and I can't find any reason for this one to be an exception. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ash-Shihr

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

Per User: Liz:

"But this is definitely not using "No consensus" in lieu of a "Keep" decision. I think you'd have a more productive and focused discussion if there was a return to AFD with these articles unbundled so participants could spend time assessing the notability of each individual event instead of discussing contributors or speculating on their motivations and points-of-view. I think it would also be helpful if you posted announcements of future AFD discussions on related WikiProjects, like Military History, on the next go-round. We need more subject matter experts here."

This is the second of a series of bogus articles that were created by this user which I'm nominating for deletion.

The only evidence for a supposed "battle" involving the Portuguese and Ottomans at As-Shir in 1530 consists of a brief passage in a single Arabian chronicle, published by the scholar R. B Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast, which happens to have been conveniently posted by another user on the talk page. It reads:

"On Sunday night, 13th Rabïf II, Mustafa voyaged from the port of al-Shihr bound for India, for fear of the arrival of the Frank, but those he had sent with Sultan Badr remained, they and Safar Salman, in the camp (:mahattah) of the Sultan (in Wadi Hadramawt) .... On Thursday, 15th of the same month (Djumâdâ I), a grab of the Frank arrived, and, entering the port of al-Shihr, fell in with a number of vessels arrived from Diu. It wanted to seize what was in them, but Safar Salman and a party of Turks put out to sea in its direction. They made towards it, but when it saw them it turned tail."

...And which anyone who actually reads it can tell, there's nothing in it about any battle having taken place, or any kind of fighting being involved whatsoever. No Portuguese sources speak of a battle at Ash-Shihr in 1530.

On the other hand, the supposed Portuguese commander, Manuel de Vasconcelos, attacked the city in 1532 and defeated the Ottomans there, as can be read here. Relevant passage: About the end of February Emanuel de Vasconcellos set out for the Red Sea with two Galliots, and some Brigantines. At Xael with the loss of one Man he took some Turkish Vessels laden, and among them a great Ship called Custurca, which was sent [to] Mascate. The King of Xael fearful of some danger, made his Peace with Submission and Presents. This source confirms it; relevant passage: "About the end of February 1532, Emanuel de Vasconcelles was sent to the Red Sea with two galliots and several brigantines to cruise against the Turks. Off Xael he captured several Turkish vessels, among which was a large ship, named Custurca, which was sent to Muscant.". This chronological source records no Portuguese battle at Ash-Shihr in 1530.

Any attempts to correct the article however, were met with an aggressively defensive reaction by the creator, who rejected any input. Wareno (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Portugal, and Turkey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This nomination seems like a continuation of an edit dispute that was barely discussed on the talk page of the article.--Gazozlu (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Any article may be nominated for deletion if such a course of action is shown to be called for and the creator has clearly shown to not be interested in input. Spamming wikitags and pushing the same tertiary sources without addressing the fact that this event isn't mentioned in any primary or secondary sources, like the creator has done here and elsewhere doesn't show that it isn't called for, on the contrary. Wareno (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:VERIFIABILITY. The reason for deletion being that this event did not happen is completely false, this event can be easily verified by its in page references. Moreover, I’m unsure as to why the user who nominated this page for deletion is referring to sources about Ash-Shihr in 1530 when this event clearly took place in 1531 as stated in the article. Page 9 of this source which is specifically and solely focused on the failed Portuguese dominions of the Red Sea clearly states that an attack on Ash-Shihr occurred in 1531 and that the commander was Manoel de Vasconcellos (accessible pdf to this source can be found here). Other than this extremely relevant source there are numerous other in page references that support the fact that this event did indeed happen. Although the exact month is uncertain the in page references confirm that this event occurred at the beginning of 1531.
  • “1531 Manoel de Vasconcellos 9 sails Attack on al-Shihr”[1]
  • “The following month , ( 15 Jamaziyal ago / 3 January 1531 ) a Portuguese ship entered the port of Shihr , but was defeated by Hodja Sefer and driven away”[2] (translated from Turkish using google translate).
  • “The following month ( 15 Cemaziyel - ago / 3 February 1531 ) a Portuguese ship entered the port of Shihr ; but he was defeated by Hoca Sefer“[3] (translated from Turkish using google translate).

Please read the in page references as there are more sources that attest the occurrence of this event in 1531. Regards Kabz15 (talk)

Besides no primary or secondary source attesting any battle by Manuel de Vasconcelos or anyone at the claimed time or space, the creator has only pushed tertiary sources that either give no sources that corroborate their claims, or do not agree in the number of vessels involved or don't say the name of the commander. The PDF always specifies when the Portuguese were defeated, but in this case says only "Attack on al-Shihr". "1531 ) a Portuguese ship entered the port of Shihr ; but he was defeated", so was it one ship or nine? According to who? Where's the battle? On what are they based to say the commander was Vasconcelos? At worst it's a complete WP:HOAX based on WP:UNRELIABLE sources at best it fails WP:NOTABILITY Wareno (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Andreu Martínez d’Alòs-Moner; Conquistadores, Mercenaries, and Missionaries: The Failed Portuguese Dominion of the Red Sea. Northeast African Studies 1 April 2012; 12 (1): 1–28. p.9.
  2. ^ Mughul, Muhammad Yakub. Kanunı̂ devri. Turkey: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 1987.
  3. ^ Tarih Enstitüsü dergisi. Turkey: İstanbul Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Tarih Enstitüsü, 1974.
  • Keep (possibly renamed) -- The sources quoted clearly indicate that the Portuguese made an attack, which was driven off by the Turks. Whether the event is correctly described as a "battle" is questionable: it sounds more like an attack or a raid. Northeast African Studies sounds to me like an academic journal, which would be WP:RS. Another source is published by a Turkish university. The question of 1530 or 1531 may be a question of whether the year ended on 31 December or 25 March. If the latter dates in January and February would be in 1530 according to that usage, but modern historical practice is to alter dates to the present style (as 1531). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. If people want to userify or redirect, that can be discussed on the talk page. Not a discussion for AfD. No consensus to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FC Bashinformsvyaz-Dynamo Ufa

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Football clubs aren't presumed notable. There are no sources independent of the subject (or the league) which discuss the team, even in Russian. This book is a mere mention to prove the team exists. Redirects are costly so deletion is better. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editors GiantSnowman and Govvy: I took a look at the ru-wiki article using Google translate, which you should try. Half of those citations are from some guy's website, https://22duraka.ucoz.ru/. It implies it is volunteer-written so it fails WP:SPS but by all means open the links and translate for yourselves. The two bashinforum cites might be ok but I have doubts championat is RS based upon archived versions like this. Before knee-jerk inclusionism, please take a look at the sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Metropolitan90 mentions userfying or a redirect, if this article is not Kept, where would it be userfied? Or what would its redirect target be if became a redirect page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Rinaldi

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

The subject was a successful youth player, but he didn't have success in a major international competition at the highest level. I was told at the talk page one Serie C appearance (he achieved just that, one appearance) was enough to meet GNG per WP:NFOOTY , but I couldn't confirm this. So I nominate it for deletion. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources are databases and the others mention his early death with some info on his football career as a youth and the one appearance in the Serie C. I quote WP:NFOOTY that leads to WP:SPORTBASIC (also accounts for the bold part above) at Wikipedia:Notability (sports) Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr Salvus 21:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - he was a young player at a top team, hence his death received significant coverage worldwide. This coverage also came from good sources: Sky, BBC, goal.com, CNN, as well as pretty much every English newspaper - and these are just the English sources, there’s obviously significant coverage in Italy as well. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reinard Dhanriano

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

Fails WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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. Star Mississippi 01:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Larissa

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

Fails WP:NBAD. Stvbastian (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is N:BAD?? I told you better monitor Indian badminton player such as Tasnim Mir, and another young Indian that not worthed.. Not only Indonesian player.. User:Stvbastian Fahrurozi.86 (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read here WP:NBAD. Winning Indonesia International didn't meet NBAD 1, 2, or 3. Indonesia International is not a highest international tournament in Indonesia. Thanks User:Fahrurozi.86 Stvbastian (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Fulton School

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

only source in article is a database. fails wp:nschool. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 12:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The school has recently merged with its sister school in Chesterfield, and I found 3 good sources explaining the history of the school. Most other articles available on newspapers.com were about individual students' golf and soccer accomplishments, or listing of graduating seniors at commencement times. Anyway, the article passes WP:GNG, the guideline that applies to non-profit schools. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Four sources:
    • "R.G. Brinkman building new Chesterfield Day School". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 1999-02-14. p. 73. Retrieved 2022-10-14.
    • "Area private schools have much to offer". St. Louis Jewish Light. 2006-08-23. pp. A16. Retrieved 2022-10-14.
    • Glenn, Reid (October 11, 2021). "St. Albans school merging with Chesterfield school, campus to be sold". The Missourian. Retrieved 2022-09-26.
    • Krueger, Bonnie (October 20, 2021). "The Fulton School, Chesterfield Day School to merge". WestNewsMagazine.com. Retrieved 2022-10-14.
    — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belated life

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

PROD removed with rationale "sources deserve review by others".

Let's review these sources and find out if this film is notable enough to have the notability tag removed and the article kept, or if the film should be deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Serene Day

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

The only source, ever, mentioning this proposed event appears to be the proposal itself, in the newsletter of an organization that... is proud to have some tenuous connection to some UN events, I guess? [12] It's a bit of a rabbit hole. In any case, not a chance at notability after removing all the vaguely related padding in the article (most of which I already cut out). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Mentioning something in a speech is not sufficient to make it WP:NOTABLE. We require a good deal of coverage by third-party, uninvolved sources for that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, it is unfortunate that multiple he-said-she-said articles are preferred over a verifiable and independent source aka straight from the horse's mouth. There is a difference between a light sprinkle and a heavy shower. It is not speech on TikTok, it was a presentation on the United Nations (UN) Web TV translated in multiple languages at the same time. Thank you. Kugold (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources found, doesn't appear to have taken off as a concept. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Source IS found - the United Nations (UN) Web TV translated in multiple languages. Also, the comment "doesn't appear to have taken off as a concept" contradicts the Wikipedia policy, namely, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or POPULARITY". Kugold (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source. Singular. Featuring the originator. Do you not see the problem with that? No one else has bothered to talk about it. That is what it comes down to. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, just reiterating the policy, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or POPULARITY".
Clearly, the comment "No one else has bothered to talk about it. That is what it comes down to" refers to POPULARITY.
Also, according to the policy, "Primary sources that have been REPUTABLY published may be USED in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them".
Most would agree that the United Nations (UN) is REPUTABLE.
Therefore, this page is acceptable and deserves to be kept.
Thank you for your consideration. Kugold (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My consideration says that you are flailing around trying to extract notability from a single, primary source. This notion culd be as "popular" as free beer, and we still couldn't have an article on it unless a sufficient number of independent sources covering it exist. Or the other way round, something may be hugely unpopular but if enough sources write about it, we can have an article. You can accept that or not, but it won't change how your article is perceived and assessed here. Over and out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The Last of the Jedi

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

See maintenance tags. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of England national amateur football team hat-tricks

List of England national amateur football team hat-tricks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list fails WP:GNG as all of these hat-tricks were scored in amateur/non-professional/B-team matches instead of senior/A-team ones. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow for the time it was deleted/off view
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I have doubts regarding WP:GNG and WP:LISTN because nobody has been able to provide WP:RS discussing this topic at length. What we have here is WP:SYNTH because the article creator has gone through every single amateur game themselves and picked out the hat-tricks and compiled the list themselves, meaning that the article violates Wikipedia policy so should be removed. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part merge to England national amateur football team. Firstly how on earth is this information violating WP:SYNTH, it doesn't employ any conclusion. It is simply factual information on who scored hat trick goals. WP:SYNTH is a floored argument for deleting this article. Secondly, the England national amateur football team is a small article, why isn't that improved before this article was created. I really suggest the content be merged over and worked on there to improve the article. There are several books out there with this information in them, history of English football is well covered, I also find arguments against GNG floored. This to me is all about where the information should be correctly located. I don't see a need for this to be in a separate article at this time. Govvy (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would still oppose a merge. This is way too specialized of a statistic -- a brief mention of the team's top goal scorers is one thing, but for such a basic article, this would be pretty ridiculous to include. There are tons of other statistics that could be generated/included, but Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. And for the record, I don't think it's SYNTH, so much as outright OR. The fact that Wikipedia editors have to comb through bare match box scores to generate this is pretty telling. It's pretty easy to miss something, which makes verification of this information difficult. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phuro Innovations

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

Failed WP:CORPDEPTH. The majority of the sources are just the company hosting events, where the company is just mentioned in passing. No sources discussed the corporation in depth. Google searches showed events that the company hosted, but no reliable sources that discussed the company in depth. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hasyim Ning

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

Borderline notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Clearly notable by quick search alone in Indonesian language. The article really need some help to be improved tho [13] [14] [15] Nyanardsan (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posers (film)

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

Article about a film, not properly sourced as having any meaningful claim to passing WP:NFILM. The only notability claim readily apparent here is that the film exists, but there are absolutely no sources here to establish that the film meets any notability criteria listed in WP:NFO -- and while I've been able to find a couple of isolated hits of "film in production" coverage dated from before it was released, there isn't enough of that to claim that it would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NFO, and I haven't been able to find any of the published film critic reviews that are much more essential to establishing permanent notability. A film's mere existence is not automatically "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to show any GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Fadel Muhammad

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

Age 23 with highest ranking 264; and never join Indonesia national team. For Indonesian badminton players, this player is not yet worthy for us to make a Wikipedia article. Fails WP:BLP, WP:NBIO , WP:SIGCOV. Stvbastian (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2022-09 ✍️ create ← 2022-03 ✗ A3
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: given language barriers, this seems to merit extra time over a PROD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Efe

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

Subject seems to appear on news majorly because of his clash with Beri over split percentages which resulted in the removal of the song from some streaming platforms, other than that, nothing better seems to be found out there that makes him notable. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of All-American Girls Professional Baseball League players (D–G). Vanamonde (Talk) 20:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Gruno

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

According to the AAGPBL website, Gruno played during the 1946 season. However, the only things that are known is her name and year played. No team is known, no statistics are known, and it is not known when she was born and died (the AAGPBL website says about her, "This player has not been located. We have no additional information."). I've searched Newspapers.com and was not able to find anything, I've searched several book sources (including The women of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League : a biographical dictionary) and was not able to find anything. And I was not able to find anything through Google either. Fails the general notability guideline with no significant coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was AfD rendered moot. Page already deleted under WP:CSD#G7 (non-admin closure) -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari penalty controversy

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

This isn't independently notable to the event at which is happened (2019 Canadian Grand Prix) and there is no reason for this content to be WP:SPLIT from the aforementioned article. (note that there is nothing in this article which isn't already in 2019 Canadian Grand Prix) SSSB (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Super Size Me. I read the arguments to delete as "this topic is not notable"; nobody has argued against redirecting in principle. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Jamieson

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

No reliable sources about her (rather than written by her). The article is highly promotional. MarioGom (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Ewald

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

According to the AAGPBL website, Ewald played in the league during the 1953 season. However, it is not known what position she played, how many games played (or any other statistic), or even what team she played for. In fact, the only things it says are known about her are her name and hometown (Niles, IL). I've searched several places (Google.com, Newspapers.com, book sources) and was not able to find any coverage. I looked through The Women of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League: A Biographical Dictionary and she is not mentioned there. Fails the general notability guideline, having no significant coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ford Bentley

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

it is hard to tell because there are other people with similar names, but it appears that his only claim to notability is that he was the child of someone else notable. There's no real evidence that he meets the notability criteria on the page and I haven't been able to find anything much in any sources JMWt (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Athaenara per WP:CSD#G11. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 00:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whitenoise

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

Already been sent to draft and recreated without resolution of the concerns raised. Subject does not demonstrate passing WP:NMUSICIAN and sources offered are mostly record label press releases without a sufficient amount of reliable, secondary significant coverage. Seems to fall foul of WP:PROMO also. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added 3 new sources all from notable media websites, if you google Whitenoise rapper his knowledge panel appears without a wiki page. The sources I have are reliable. The topic is notable and can be researched as whitenoise rapper. It's hard to find research on topic because of the term White Noise. I create notable Hip Hop wiki articles. Whitenoise is notable because he is easily impersonated but actually owner of @whitenoise on almost every major platform. Nrdeb2003 (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)  Confirmed sock Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, to the IP who reverted my vote - erm, you really can't do that. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Gale

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

Non-notable, does not fulfill Wikipedia:Notability (politics) - Mooonswimmer 15:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I'm largely setting aside the drive-by !votes, which do not provide any arguments I can give weight to. There is some support for a merger, but no viable target has been suggested, weakening that argument considerably. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Javad Safaei

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

Non-notable activist who got arrested but with no indication they are notable because of this, or before this protest event. Citations offered barely mention the subject, some not at all. The closest is this news article which is entirely interview quotation without any actual reporting. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has made no or few edits outside of this topic. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has made no or few edits outside of this topic. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has made no or few edits outside of this topic. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has made no or few edits outside of this topic. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted)

This editor has made no or few edits outside of this topic. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge The article is relatively important, it can be useful and it can be completed later, but in my opinion, it should be linked to another page because the subject of this article refers directly to an arrest incident, so it should be moved to another page with a different name, for example: The arrest of Javad Safaei) is just one example.5.52.135.2 (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has made no or few edits outside of this topic. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted)

  • @Jtrrs0: Through my search, I was able to find out that this person was really a member of the "Iranian Youth Culture and Art Commission", and Jam Jam newspaper physically confirmed and published this person in the newspaper on 9/23/1400(Solar date is not Gregorian.). Jamosak (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jamosak: Thank you for the information. Thank you also for the source, I can't read it, but I'll happily take you at your word that it says what you say. The thing is, when considering my opinion, I did take into account that he was a member of the commission. This is not enough on its own and it adds little to establish the necessary notoriety. Under WP:POLITICIAN his office would need to be more significant than what looks to me to be a quango and a relatively minor one at that. My view is unchanged. Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It seems that this article could be important because it is about a political activist and also a person who is now arrested by the Iranian government, I also checked the sources, 4 of the sources are correct, I could not understand the rest of the sources, but some English news agencies Like Forbes has endorsed him, this is my opinion and I am unbiased.Azadizan (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has made no or few edits outside of this topic. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, an administrator looking at this will not at all think it suspicious that since this was protected to auto confirmed needed, you make 11 meaningless edits before then editing straight into this AfD, 15mins after your first registered edit. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BungleI feel that you have received money for removing this article, because I checked your discussion page and many people have congratulated you from the Iranian government, and you are persistent in removing this article, in my opinion, for Decisions about this article should be made by others, please do not abuse your power, because this is against the rules of Wikipedia. If you receive a fee for creating or deleting an article, say it publicly, thank you.Azadizan (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think it's really clear that this AfD has been over-run with WP:SPAs and therefore, especially based on the edit history, the weight carried will be negligible. An WP:SPI may well be in order here. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Ortega

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

Extent of notability unclear - Mooonswimmer 15:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Wii games. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Garfield Show: Threat of the Space Lasagna

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. There are no reliable reviews or coverage of this game, and nothing comes up on Metacritic. This Gamespot review might look reliable at first glance, but it's just user-generated content. Sparkltalk 14:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpytoo Talk 18:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was delete. BD2412 T 06:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joni Patry

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

Promotional article on-notable fringe believer; original article created by a later-banned editor. Sourcing is mediocre to non-existent. Orange Mike | Talk 14:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep - nomination withdrawn. This was a slightly surprising result, but full marks to User:Boca Jóvenes for being the one to improve the article. (non-admin closure). StAnselm (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Grieve

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

WP:NCRIC states that "significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation". This person played in two matches in South Africa that, a decade later, were retrospectively recognised as Test matches. They were the only first-class matches he ever did appear in because he went on that tour to make the numbers up and probably, a frequent scenario in those days, because he was somebody's public school "chum". While significant coverage certainly exists for the vast majority of England Test players, in this case it does not and the article comprehensively fails WP:SPORTCRIT.

Part of the content, including the uncited sentence about wine merchandise, has been lifted from the Cambridge Alumni database which may or may not be reliable. Most of the second paragraph, however, is WP:OR which cannot be substantiated and is an opinion piece. Looking at other potential sources, CricketArchive as you would expect publishes the two match scorecards and a brief statistical summary of Grieve's involvement in them. ESPNcricinfo does the same but with a short comment about his "impact on the cricket world". This refers to his Wisden obituary which merely states: "(Grieve) died at Eastbourne on November 14, aged 53. Harrow XI, 1883, taking four wickets for 67 runs against Eton at Lord's. Member of MCC since 1885". The Harrow v Eton match is schools cricket and, like membership of MCC, not an indication of notability. I've also scanned Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game for 1888 and 1889 but mentions of Grieve are brief inclusions in routine match coverage. In one place, however, it says he bowled using an underarm action, which was unusual at that time. I've checked various books in my possession and can't find any references to him.

Grieve has a line in List of England Test cricketers#Early years: 1877–1889 which is more than adequate for such a historical anomaly. Although he played in what are recognised as Test matches, he is in fact a classic example of someone who just happened to be involved and did nothing then or at any other time to warrant attention, hence the almost complete lack of coverage. I wouldn't oppose a WP:ATD but I think, in a case like this, it might be inappropriate because there is no possible chance of useful coverage being discovered. His line in the Test cricketers list says everything that needs to be said. BoJó | talk UTC 13:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have that book either, but I have seen it. Many of its entries are necessarily brief but I know several people who can probably access it and I'll try and check it out. Thanks. BoJó | talk UTC 15:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think it matters that the "England cap" was awarded retrospectively, or that the rest of his cricket career was less than distinguished: he still represented his country at the highest international level and in the modern way of allocating cap numbers, he's an integral part of the sequence. It doesn't matter either that this is never likely to be more than a stub: as someone has written on a discussion elsewhere, around 50 per cent of WP articles are stubs, many capable of expansion, some not. I think also that it is wrong to think always of articles as standalone pieces, surviving or perishing on their individual merits. There have been more than 700 England Test cricketers over 145 years and the fact that they all have an article makes for a completeness that is, to my mind, encyclopedic; we should be able to tolerate one (or maybe a few more than one) sketchy, stubby article for the sake of this completeness. Johnlp (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As he played international cricket for England. Has entries in The complete who's who of test cricketers, World cricketers : a biographical dictionary and England : the cricket facts Piecesofuk (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be coverage out there, especially in offline sources, suggesting a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn. The entries in the two CMJ books are identical and the Hayes book provides only a brief statistical summary which equates with that on CricketArchive. Basically, then, we know his name and dates; he went to Harrow and Cambridge; he joined MCC and he became a wine merchant. But, he went to South Africa with Warton's team and played in two historic Test matches. Extra information found is that he bowled underarm and that he and Bowden remained in South Africa after the tour ended. I've rewritten the article to encompass everything mentioned here and I now think the article should be kept. The point about completeness is convincing and it does seem that there is broad coverage in offline sources. Thanks to all who have contributed. BoJó | talk UTC 19:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was delete. BD2412 T 06:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ljubomir Arsić

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

Can't find any evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC for this footballer that played mostly in the lower levels of the Serbian league system. Searches of "Љубомир Арсић" and "Ljubomir Arsić" yielded very little. There is a passing mention in Cajetina, which won't support a notability claim. I have excluded Zlatibor TV because it is a routine transfer piece and is from a non-independent source; a football club website. SPORTBASIC #2 says team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject so, whilst it can be referenced in the article, it cannot be used as a claim to notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nobody besides the article subject has found what they consider evidence of notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alaa Abd-Elsayed

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

Associate professor, article sourced in the main to papers he contributed to. Other than perfectly sound work as an associate professor, there is no evidence of notability. Features the immortal edit summary, "This is my page and I want this statement to be comprehensive." Fails WP:GNG; WP:NACADEMIC. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr Abd-Elsayed -- Thanks for participating here. The standard for inclusion of researchers in the medical field under WP:PROF #1 is extremely high; normally we require multiple research (not review) papers with >100 citations (in Google Scholar). The other route is under WP:AUTHOR, which is usually fulfilled with two or more authored books with multiple full book reviews (at least 4 and preferably more), not all from the same source. If you can list a number of book reviews here that would be very helpful. David Eppstein above has already performed a search above and not found anything. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for including me in the discussion.
I have articles with more than 100 citations as:
The changing patterns of bladder cancer in Egypt over the past 26 years
Role of Intraoperative and Postoperative Blood Glucose Concentrations in Predicting Outcomes after Cardiac Surgery
I had books reviews but I did not keep track of them
I will appreciate the opportunity if I can send you my CV because it is not about my research only. I serve in very high profile leadership positions in academic institute, national societies and I received very prestigious awards (for example I am a fellow of the American Board of Anesthesiology). I agree with you that the page needs good editing to reflect my career and my strength points. 172.98.108.248 (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you upload a CV at your academic profile at University of Wisconsin–Madison? In the past we've considered CVs that are hosted by reputable universities to be acceptable sources. Looking at the profile here, the other possible WP:PROF angle would be editor-in-chief positions on major academic journals. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
I will explore the possibility of uploading my CV to my University profile but please give me sometime to explore and I hope this will be achievable.
This is a link to my current profile:https://anesthesia.wisc.edu/research/researchers/abd-elsayed-laboratory/abd-elsayed-laboratory-publications/
I serve as an editor in chief for Pain Medicine Case Reports which is a journal of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians.
I also serve as a section editor for Journal of Pain Research, Pain Physician, Current Pain and Headache Reports. Associate editor for Pain Practice and Inforgaphics editor for Pain Practice. I also serve on the editorial board of several high impact journals including Neuromodulation. 172.98.108.248 (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:PROF. Gusfriend (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With all my respect, I read all the criteria and I fit all of them. Happy to add to the page to make this notable.
    My research is in high impact journals and used as guidelines for care in many places
    I described new novel procedures
    I hold high academic leadership positions
    I served on my state medical board.
    I would be happy to share more information if needed but truly my work fits all the criteria and happy to add more to the page. 192.250.20.4 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of this, I was just trying to edit the page to make it better 192.250.20.4 (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of this, I was just trying to edit the page to make it better 192.250.20.4 (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was keep. There is no reason to believe relisting would yield a different outcome at this point. BD2412 T 06:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nunu (singer)

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

Article sourced entirely to a single short but highly promotional piece in Maariv, artist fails WP:GNG, WP:SINGER, presents no evidence of notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added more references --Omer Toledano (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Road

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

Fails WP:GNG. A minor organization that was never represented in the National Assembly, there are barely any sources mentioning the party's existence, and those sources that exist only point out that it took part in a joint list with the Democratic Party of Serbia in the 2020 election which ended up winning no seats. Vacant0 (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Schecker

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO / WP:NAUTHOR, lacks any reliable / verifiable sources or references. Dan arndt (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zidhan Mohamed

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

Fails the requirements of WP:NJOURNALIST, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. No evidence of notability. Dan arndt (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. I ensure that this is a notable person and information is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.195.199.79 (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 09:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Abreu

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

As per the article, his professional career consisted of only 8 minutes in the second tier of Portugal before disappearing into the amateur divisions or retiring. Database profile pages are all I can find and these are not evidence of notability as per WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC, the only relevant guidelines now. Portuguese searches fail to yield relevant coverage and instead come up with irrelevant hits relating to a mayor of the same name. Searching "Jorge Abreu da Silva" yields only database coverage, which is not acceptable either. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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. RL0919 (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Hollywood

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

Biography of a radio presenter and businessman. Lots of links, but none of them seem to amount to significant coverage - passing mentions or lists of winners of local business awards or straightforward lists of companies that exist. The article is written in something of a promotional tone. Flip Format (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

$1,000,000 Worth of Twang

$1,000,000 Worth of Twang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm hesitant regarding this one. Given the amount of hits and the charting this album did, I figured it'd be easier to find coverage, but I couldn't. I saw dozens of books recording its chart placement, but the only prose aside from that pitifully short AllMusic review is in this book from 2011, and even that might only be a passing mention (I can't access the whole book to tell). I imagine this is more a case of non-digitized coverage than lack thereof, but I can't leave the page as is and I don't like just leaving a WP:DRIVEBY tag and hoping someone else takes care of it eventually. So I bring it here. If nothing's found and it has to go, my vote is to redirect to Duane_Eddy#Compilations. QuietHere (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietHere: I've now also added several sources to the article such that it now also appears to pass NALBUMS, prong 1 and WP:GNG. Would you consider withdrawing the nom at this point? Cbl62 (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62 In fact I have considered it and I agree that this should be withdrawn. Thanks for your work. QuietHere (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for your open mind. The end result is a much-improved article. Good outcome. Cbl62 (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UserWay

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

No indication that this entity meets WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 05:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The company is trading in the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and leading the web accessibility solutions, I am adding more references now. Adisma2 (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC) — Adisma2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The references added are unhelpful for demonstrating notability. For example, the two Forbes cites are basically paid advertisements, unusable per WP:FORBESCON. BD2412 T 19:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the excessive appearance of WP:SPA !votes on this page, I am semi-protecting to limit discussion to experienced editors. BD2412 T 18:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Potty

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

Article about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online English and Portuguese-language coverage is trivial, such as transfer announcements and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mirosław Goliński

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

Article about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online English and Polish-language coverage is trivial or not independent of the subject, such as transfer announcements and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bincheng Mao

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

Fails WP:NBASIC, there is passing coverage of Mao but nothing about him directly. He is often tied to his nonprofit and there is coverage of that nonprofit but there isn't much about him other than he shows up to things or gets a passing mention in articles. Sources include being in a Top 100 list from Forbes but that doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. He is also known for being awarded money from the Clinton Foundation for his nonprofit but all mentions of it are passing or are just a list of award winners. Article claims Mao is a contributor for the Chicago Tribune and the Orlando Sentinel but he wrote commentaries so would not pass WP:JOURNALIST. Nonprofit also fails Wikipedia:NCHARITY, it is there but there isn't much coverage attached to it outside of one or two minor events and being listed on all of Maos profiles.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
FOX 5 Yes Local mainstream news Yes Local news ~ Article is not about Mao but does feature him ~ Partial
City Limits/ Sing Tao Daily ? Reprint of an article from the Sing Tao Daily about NYU student activists during COVID ? Unable to assess ? Unable to assess ? Unknown
World Economic Forum Yes Appears to be independent of outside influence ~ For most material yes but this is just a profile not an interview No Short description of Mao ✘ No
Chicago Tribune ~ Article is commentary authored by Mao ~ Article is commentary authored by Mao ~ Article is commentary authored by Mao ~ Partial
Chicago Tribune ~ Article is commentary authored by Mao ~ Article is commentary authored by Mao ~ Article is commentary authored by Mao ~ Partial
Chicago Tribune ~ Article is commentary authored by Mao ~ Article is commentary authored by Mao ~ Article is commentary authored by Mao ~ Partial
Forbes China Yes WP:FORBES but this is Forbes China Yes WP:FORBES No Just a list of 100 Outstanding Chinese ✘ No
Forbes China Yes WP:FORBES but this is Forbes China Yes WP:FORBES but this is Forbes China No Just a list of 30 under 30 ✘ No
Clinton Foundation Yes Foundation has donors but work appears to be independent ~ Coverage is just a list from the foundation No Lists Mao as a winner of COVID Student Action Fund money ✘ No
Asia Society Yes Society looks independent after reading a few articles and checking their website out ~ Looks more like a press release than anything. No author or contact infomation No Only mention of Mao is in a caption of a photo ✘ No
American Public Health Association Yes APHA is a leader in the public health field ~ Annoucnment of a webinar but not a recording or article talking about the webinar No Mao is listed as a participant but is not the main focus of the webinar ✘ No
Voice of America Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_353#VOA_(Voice_of_America) Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_353#VOA_(Voice_of_America) No Mao is listed as a participant for the same webinar and includes a photo of him from the webinar ✘ No
Chicago Tribune ~ Article is commentary authored by Mao ~ Article is commentary authored by Mao ~ Article is commentary authored by Mao ~ Partial
Orlando Sentinel ~ Article is commentary authored by Mao ~ Article is commentary authored by Mao ~ Article is commentary authored by Mao ~ Partial
Sing Tao Yes Sing Tao appears to be independent ~ Article covers the meeting and appears to cite events that took place. I wasn't able to assess this for other articles so I had to go with just this article. Yes Article is about Mao meeting Rice in a Zoom meeting ~ Partial
Columbia ~ Article is about Michael Sparer and Chelsea Clinton being interviewed about COVID. Mao was the moderator Yes Article includes link to the interview No Mao is mentioned as moderator and for winning a grant from the Clinton Foundation ✘ No
Club of Madrid Yes Nonprofit org focused on democracy ? Link is to a podcast that I didn't feel like sitting though ~ Interview with Mao and Kim Campbell former prime minster of Canada about youth engagement The focus is on Campbell and not Mao at least in what I could find ? Unknown
Forbes China Yes WP:FORBES but this is Forbes China Yes WP:FORBES but this is Forbes China No Just a list of 100 Outstanding Chinese ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 02:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yemeni Workers' Party

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

I can't find any sources on this political party besides the one in the article. While I don't speak Arabic, which greatly limits my ability to search for sources in this case, the text of the article makes me think that it's unlikely that this party is notable, since apparently the only thing they've done since their founding is create a social media page that may or may not even be connected to them. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7. Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 BBL Championship

2022–23 BBL Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This season fails WP:GNG. Beyond the fact that a results table flies in the face of WP:NOT, almost no sourcing can be found independent of the league, the teams, venues selling tickets, or broadcasters showing the events. There is no sports journalism on this season as the only other source I can find is another table. Also, redirects are costly. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, individual teams playing in the season certainly get media attention: [19], [20], etc. I know there are a variety of websites that specialize in British basketball, as well. It's a niche league, but there is some material out there. Zagalejo (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_October_9&oldid=1116511372"