Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 20

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< March 19 March 21 >

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! 00:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HGM Moe Ji One

HGM Moe Ji One (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 seems worrying. I came across it as a paid job on Upwork, and intended just to tag it, but then I started looking into the sources. Almost every single source was user-generated or an SEO site that published in late September/early October 2022, not long after the job was accepted but while the article was still stuck in draft. When I dug further, I found that much of it was faked - a photo of the subject on the cover of Forbes Africa in November 2015 was faked; a picture of him performing at a concert proved to be a completely different artist with the subject's silhouette poorly photoshopped on top. Sites claiming his academic achievements were false - one was for a completely different person, and while the other was on ResearchGate and had been specifically created for him, none of the papers were written by the subject - and it included papers written over a decade before he was born. There were a lot of claims about him being a voice actor, but all the sources that mentioned him were SEO sites, and while he turns up as a primary actor in IMDB entries about the shows, he never turns up in any other list of cast that I can find, including official lists on Netflix and at the end of the shows themselves. There is one source that looks potentially valid, in The Source online, but it reads as SEO as well and contains clearly false claims. One reference even claimed that he lived in Germany and was a voice actor for key roles in the German dub of The Simpsons, only that also didn't match any lists of the German cast I could find. Anyway, I don't know if this is a hoax or just a massively inflated list of accomplishments, but when all the SEO sources, fake sources and sources that didn't mention the subject are removed, we're down to one that looks very,very suspicous. Bilby (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. Bilby (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are false claims at an attempt of notability, and a WP:BEFORE search showed nothing. Maybe there's something in Arabic that we may overlooking, but I doubt it. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing found for for this person, seems to be fake from the description above. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability not substantiated through genuine reliable sources MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks to be created with intention to promote the subject and also deceive the community, if he is notable enough one day, then someone unconnected to the subject can create a factually accurate bio Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Thanks to Bilby for the in-depth investigation. The article is sparse now because Bilby has removed everything unreliable, but it is very interesting to look at an older version from before March 20 and see how preposterous this whole thing was. The wannabe-celebrity is clearly trying to create a false resume for himself, and good luck with that out in the rest of the uncomprehending Internet, but it won't fly here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet notability and as per all above. Pershkoviski (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Det Blå Marked

Det Blå Marked (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)

After a quick google search, this page doesn't appear to be notable or have a substantial enough number of secondary sources to draw upon. Uffda608 (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Mata Mandir, Morakari

Kali Mata Mandir, Morakari (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 is WP:CIRCULAR - the corresponding article on the Bengali Wikipedia. The only sources that article cites are also other Wikipedia articles. Searches in English and Bengali found no independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage, so it fails WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable building, which the article claims is in the process of being replaced. The article contains no clues as to where the information came from. There is no evidence of notability.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not ready to be on Wikipedia in current condition. Nocturnal781 (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON Prabartak Sri Krishna Temple

ISKCON Prabartak Sri Krishna Temple (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 cited sources are (1) the organization that runs the temple, and (2) Struggle for Hindu Existence. The latter is a website with no reputation for accuracy or fact checking, and appears biased. Their source is ISKON TRUTH, which also sounds non-independent. In any case, all the second source says about this temple is that a devotee there was investigating an attack at another temple. Searches in English and Bengali found no independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of this temple, so it fails WP:GNG, and Wikipedia should not have a stand alone article about it. Worldbruce (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I managed to find the real source for this article using Earwig's Copyvio Detector on an early version of the article.[1] That source is:
    • NishanBD (7 July 2021), ISKCON Bangladesh Built The Most Expensive Temple In Chittagong, Kreately Media
Kreately Media is a self-publishing platform. Alt News describes Kreately as a "factory of hate and misinformation".[2] -- Toddy1 (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it’s been established at AfD that individual ISKCON centres aren’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable building. Wikipedia is only meant to have articles on buildings like this if reliable secondary sources write about them. The most useful source for this building that I could find was a self-published article on Kreately Media.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Devlet Bahçeli. Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Separatist kebabists

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

Not notable. It is merely a made-up term used by a politician in a single speech, nothing WP:LASTING. It lacks WP:COVERAGE and more. Aintabli (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 20. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is the first nomination of this? Anyway, the coverage I found is only from 5–6 October 2021, so on the day of the speech and the next day. No hits in academic papers either. Politician says something, opposite party reacts, and then it's over within a day. Funny and hilarious but nothing lasting per the lack of sources. Maybe deserves to be mentioned in the article of Devlet Bahçeli in one or two sentences and that's it. ~StyyxTalk? 08:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. On the talk page of the article, it writes that it was proposed for deletion on 5 October 2021, so I thought there was a previous nomination but couldn't find it anywhere. Guess they just left that there and forgot to have the discussion. Aintabli (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposed deletions are different from AFD's in that PRODS are not discussed.   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Aintabli (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A simplistic joke that gained no traction, made by a politician during campaign time. A cursory perusal of the sources, those already enlisted for this article and a few others fished online, reveal a burst of guffaws that lasted a couple of days and then disappeared. A one-off of utter insignificance. -The Gnome (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nicely put. Aintabli (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Topic has no relevance aside from Devlet Bahçeli so should be merged into that article and replaced with a redirect. —dgiestc 19:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per my reasoning above. Merging a few sentences into the main article is fine. ~StyyxTalk? 01:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of any lasting coverage beyond the routine news cycle and therefore incompatible with WP:NOTNEWS. Furthermore, there's some very creative translation here. Seriously, "kebabist" for "kebapçı"? Might pop to my local kebabist when I'm feeling peckish then. :) Clearly done for dramatic effect which isn't really good encyclopaedia writing and is on the border of violating WP:OR. Hence, there's nothing here to even redirect/merge, any mention in the page on Bahçeli would be likely undue anyway. --GGT (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gopinath Jiu Temple, Fandauk

Gopinath Jiu Temple, Fandauk (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)

Searches in English and Bengali found only routine police blotter coverage of a petty theft from the temple in 2017, and the arrest the next day of the miscreants believed responsible. All we know about this run-of-the-mill place of worship from reliable sources is that it had at least 5 brass idols, 1 stone idol, the equivalent of about US$14 in cash, and a pair of cymbals. Such is not sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time to justify a stand alone Wikipedia article about the temple. Worldbruce (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Support deletion based on notability grounds per reasoning of nominator MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - The robbery is more notable than the building, but at least there are some decent sources.[3][4][5] It is also disappointing how bad the creator's draft was - for example the 17:30 30 August 2021 version says "The tradition of this temple is 100 of years old." But one of the sources says that a "hundred year old stone idol of Vishnu had been stolen". I wish there were a relevant article where we could put this information - but I cannot find one.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments to keep do not generally dispute that sourcing on this subject is somewhat thin, but rather argue that even at this, it is adequate. The arguments to delete primarily hinge, not only on current issues with neutrality (which, when a fixable problem, is not a criterion for deletion), but that the dearth of sourcing renders the writing of an appropriately neutral article impossible, which is grounds to delete. Neither argument is unreasonable or outside of policy, so the delete arguments have achieved consensus via substantially more support. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Place name changes in Armenia

Place name changes in Armenia (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, the article is based entirely on a single source by Husik Ghulyan. The only other source in the article by Saparov is from a claim directly from Ghulyan's article where he cites the Saparov source, that claim is also not about the topic of this article. I tagged this article with the single source tag over a year ago and asked for additional sources in the talk page, however, I've received no response and the article still is based on a single source. I took it upon myself to search for additional sources but cannot find any reliable secondary sources that directly touch on this topic, it has not received significant enough scholarship for a standalone article. Additionally, and most concerning of all, are the nationalistic WP:FRINGE claims found in the Ghulyan source. For example, the source claims that "academic consensus" places the ancestors of Armenians as migrants to the region and the connection of Armenians to Urartu is based on soviet revisionism. This runs contrary to the modern academic consensus in western sources which can be found in the Origin of the Armenians article. Numerous other claims that are controversial at best exist in the article. It also worth noting the author is associated with Ankara University which also leads me to question the neutrality of the source. In an area as controversial as this, basing the article on a single source is unlikely to fit the Wikipedia guidelines for WP:NPOV making it unsuitable for Wikipedia. TagaworShah (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I’d also like to add that since this article is entirely based on a single source’s claims, it has a lot of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and many quotes, including long ones, which also pegs the question on the copyright issues that may exist. TagaworShah (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't speak or read Armenian but this book with a partial translation in English appears to be about placename changes in Armenia. It's from 1986. JMWt (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JMWt: Thanks for commenting! The problem with that solution is that the article now is written basically as a summary of the POV of one source, it’s written in the context of place-name changes being systemic anti-Turkic/anti-minority movements as opposed to the source you offered up. Basically, it’s arguing a specific POV that has not been covered in significant scholarship, as opposed to just neutrally presenting that facts of place-names changing in Armenia. The article would have to be entirely rewritten. Cheers, TagaworShah (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well I don't know enough to !vote. It sounds like you are talking about cleanup, and I'm not sure how much would really be necessary if it was just a case of cutting right back until further balance and less controversial sources could be found. The topic seems likely to be notable to me. JMWt (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JMWt: Outside of the articles of specific cities that were renamed, this topic doesn’t really have significant coverage as a systemic process. Emphasis lying on the systemic process of place-name changes as a subset of nationalism which is the scope of this article as opposed to just changes in general. The single source tag has been there for over a year now, it doesn’t look like there is significant coverage in secondary sources to keep this article while maintaining neutrality. TagaworShah (talk)
  • JMWt That is why this article should be deleted for being a WP:FORK of an existing article. --Dallavid (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Perfectly fine article, meets GNG in my opinion. there are more sources available covering it. It would be better to expand rather than delete. After the Soviet Empire: Legacies and Pathways([6]); The Alteration of Place Names and Construction of National Identity in Soviet Armenia([7]); Nation and Politics in the Soviet Successor States by Ian Bremmer and Ray Taras.([8]); A b r v a g l (PingMe) 08:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s important to note that besides the Saparov source, which is already in the article and is about Soviet times, the other 2 sources provided only make passing mentions of the subject and do not go in depth to support an entire article. It would be more appropriate to merge the information into another article as significant in-depth coverage does not exist, especially for post-soviet Armenia, the article has been with the single source tag for over a year. TagaworShah (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is essentially a personal essay of one person who additionally makes WP:FRINGE claims in his work as OP mentioned, and the subject doesn’t have enough notability to deserve an article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The articles is entirely built on a WP:SINGLESOURCE that doesn't appear to be credible. Ghulyan got his Ph.D from Ankara University, which explains why the article is so anti-Armenian; mentioning "Armenian nationalists" every second sentence and referring to the Armenian genocide as "tragic". Inflammatory claims like "prevalent anti-Turkish nationalist sentiments" or "Molokans and Yezidis being labeled as 'foreign' and 'inharmonious'" would need a great deal of reliable citations to have enough due weight to belong on Wikipedia, but such citations do not seem to exist outside of Turkish sources. --Dallavid (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Archives908 (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG just fine as far as I can see. Just because its almost entirely based on one source, doesn't make it a ludicrious concept that could not be a stand-alone article, per Wikipedia's guidelines. Per the relevant template [9]: "A single source is not automatically a problem. Good judgment and common sense should be used. " It is a well known fact that all constitutent Soviet republics and their independent successor states engaged/engage in rewriting of history to varying degrees. Some moreso than others. With all due respect, but OP tries to discredit the source by using a variety of arguments that hold zero ground, as they have not brought any evidence/sources to support their claims. The source is from a very good journal (Central Asian Survey) that is published by Taylor and Francis. The author, Husik Gulyan, also doesn't seem to have a track record of poor and/or politically motivated scholarship. But please do correct me if mistaken.
  1. "For example, the source claims that "academic consensus" places the ancestors of Armenians as migrants to the region and the connection of Armenians to Urartu is based on soviet revisionism"
So you are saying the proto-Armenians always lived in that area, and the IE language they spoke also sprung from there? When one visits the Proto-Armenian language page however (Proto-Armenian_language#History):

The origin of the Proto-Armenian language is subject to scholarly debate. Although the Armenian hypothesis would postulate the Armenian language as an in situ development of a 3rd millennium BC Proto-Indo-European language,[7] the more popular Kurgan hypothesis suggests it arrived in the Armenian Highlands either from the Balkans or through the Caucasus. The arrival of such a population who spoke Proto-Armenian in the Armenian Highlands is assumed to have occurred sometime during the Bronze Age[8][9] or at the latest, during the Bronze Age Collapse around 1200 BC.[10]

Unless you consider the "less popular theory" as a fact, I don't see how Ghulyan's writings about this constitute "fringe".

  1. "and the connection of Armenians to Urartu is based on soviet revisionism"
It literally doesn't state that. The article says: "In addition, although most scholars consider that the original proto-Armenians were probably migrants to the region, in the 1980s a revisionist school of historians claimed that Armenians were the aboriginal inhabitants who had lived continuously on the Armenian plateau since the fourth millennium BCE and that even Urartu was an Armenian state (887)..[5]"
Urartu is considered a predecessor of Armenia, but it wasn't an Armenian state.
  • "It also worth noting the author is associated with Ankara University which also leads me to question the neutrality of the source"
Ghulyan literally writes about the Armenian genocide in the article. If he was on a Turkish payroll/influenced by Turkish historiography, why would he be acknowleding the AG in his writings?
- LouisAragon (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: For the record, the Saparov source in this article, although indeed from a claim directly from Ghulyan's article where he cites the source itself, contains a huge amount of information about this topic. It can easily be used to expand this article. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisAragon: Per WP:SINGLESOURCE a stand-alone article being entirely sourced by one source is problematic, especially in an area as controversial as this, where WP:NPOV is required and inaccurate information is likely to persist without a balance of sources. The fact of the matter is there is not sufficient secondary sources to support a full article, a simple statement of fact that names were changed plus a little context in another article would be far more appropriate. The idea that Armenians are migrants to the region is indeed WP:FRINGE, it is academic consensus that Armenians are an indigenous people of the Armenian highlands, linguistic theories have nothing to do with that and the idea that the Armenian connection to Urartu is made up by the soviets is a Turkish revisionist stance that doesn’t hold academic weight, I hope we can agree on that. The Ghulyan source is problematic, just because it was published by a reliable journal does not mean it is above criticism for its biased and nationalistic fringe claims. The Saparov source is also about Soviet Armenia specifically, there are not enough sources about the Republic of Armenia and if so we should create a new article specifically about Soviet Armenia, although even that has limited sources available and i’m unsure it’s notable enough as well. TagaworShah (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this is literally a repeat of the same stuff you've already posted, but hey, why not?:
  • "Per WP:SINGLESOURCE a stand-alone article being entirely sourced by one source is problematic..."
It doesn't say that. It says "Following this guideline, a subject for which only one source can be cited is unlikely to merit a standalone article. ". Yet we have Saparov in addition to Ghulyan, whose article is filled with information about this topic. So we have two sources, one of the them being written by one of the leading scholars in this field (Arsene Saparov). Also, once again, for the record, although this article doesn't contain just one reference, the One Source Template tells us: "A single source is not automatically a problem. Good judgment and common sense should be used. "[10]
  • "The idea that Armenians are migrants to the region is indeed WP:FRINGE..."
Once again, Ghulyan doesn't state that. Quote the exact sentence if you think he does.
  • "and the idea that the Armenian connection to Urartu is made up by the soviets is a Turkish revisionist stance that doesn’t hold academic weight"
Once, again, he [Ghulyan] doesn't state that. With all due respect, but it seems as if you didn't read the article at all? I'm always open to sound arguments, but I have yet to see one covered by proper evidence against this article/Ghulyan. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Louis, you missed the part where it says “Without additional citations providing access to further information about the single source's contents, it is possible for inaccurate or outdated material to persist.” That’s why it’s problematic. This is a controversial subject matter, not a matter of common sense. The POV Ghulyan is representing is not an uncontroversial one and in an area like AA3, where WP:NPOV needs to be taken with extreme caution, it makes no sense to rely on a single source for the entire article due to “common sense.”. Additionally, Ghulyan argues that Armenians are not indigenous (aboriginals) to the region, which runs contrary to modern scientific consensus such as the CELL article I linked. The mention of Urartu and the origin of Armenians in such an article, also reveals that this may not be the most unbiased work on this topic. This is why many editors here, including myself, see it as a WP:POVFORK. The basic statistical information can be merged with the list of renamed cities in Armenia. However, the arguments made by Ghulyan about the connection to nationalism, antiTurkism, and homogenous state identity, which is what this article is about according to your own discussions on the talk pages are not sufficiently supported by reliable secondary sources to prove independent notability. TagaworShah (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with the nominator. - Kevo327 (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per LouisAragon. Also, more sources on this topic could be found, and what Gulyan wrote about Urartu does not go against general scientific consensus, even if Urartu is not the main topic of the source. It is enough to check the articles about locations in Armenia to see that many of them had other names in Russian imperial and Soviet times. Grandmaster 17:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grandmaster: There is already a List of renamed cities in Armenia, this is just a WP:POVFORK of that article based entirely on the opinions and claims of Ghulyan that are not sufficiently sourced or neutral. And what he said about Armenians being migrants and unrelated to Urartu is in fact false and a fringe theory. Academic consensus is that Armenians are indigenous to the region per the highly respected Cell journal[11] and that Urartians are the earliest identifiable ancestors of the Armenians.[1][2][3][4] This article had over a year to be fixed with proper sources but it’s clear they do not exist because this article is built around a specific pov that has not been studied extensively as opposed to just presenting that facts on renamed cities like the list article that already exists. TagaworShah (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Britannica would be promoting fringe theories. Their article sees Urartu as distinct people. [12] And this article is not about Urartu, so I don't see why we need to discuss it that much. And a list is not the same as a dedicated article that would cover the process in detail. Grandmaster 00:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is already a page called List of renamed cities in Armenia, which provides information on the topic. This article instead seems based entirely on the opinions and claims of one single author, who does not seem reliable, non-neutrality of POV is also a serious concern here. Doesn’t look like there is a good chance to improve or find better and more reliable sources either, so better to delete.Vanezi (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per LouisAragon. Daniel222potato (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely unnecessary WP:POVFORK, fails GNG. The OR NPOV issues are a serious problem in the entire article, none of it is correctly sourced, so a merge is not an option. If there is a redirect, this should be deleted first.  // Timothy :: talk  03:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with the aspersions cast against Ghulyan. Even if he defended his dissertation in a country where the genocide is actively denied, that doesn't necessarily negate his findings or make him an unreliable source (though I have heard anecdotally how educational institutions in Turkey often pressure students to express views that conform with the country's official narrative on the genocide). That being said, there's an almost excessive reliance on Ghulyan's interpretation of why the name-changes occurred. Whether it's because he didn't mention it or the editor who wrote it neglected to mention it, there is no denying that up until the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries the region that now comprises the lands of the Republic of Armenia once had a solid ethnic majority consisting of Armenians. It was through migration, forced expulsions, and population movement that their numbers dwindled and led inversely to an increased Muslim Turkic settlement there. Naturally, the names of their former towns and villages were given Muslim names; in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, these locales were in turn restored with their older names or given new Armenian names (depending on the locale). No doubt Armenian nationalism has had a lot to do with some of the renaming in the Soviet and independence years, but whence, after all, do those names come from? Talking about indigeneity up until 1831 is thus very misplaced, or only tells half the story. There is no need to reach all the way back to Urartu and talk about primordialism to know that there was once a significant Armenian population living in towns and villages prior to the Turkic invasions of the eleventh-twelfth centuries. It's the "Context and Background" section that I find the most problematic, because I think you can easily dispute some of Suny's and Ghulyan's conclusions. My two cents. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MarshallBagramyan: Any editor is free to expand the article to include material about the well-known Armenian majorities/pluralities/settlements that existed in that area prior to the mass deportations, expulsions and population movements. WP:FIXIT comes to mind. If someone could make a start, I'm definitely willing to lend a hand if time allows. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article would certainly benefit from more sources, not just Ghulyan and Saparov, although they appear to be primary researchers of this topic. I think some sources support a standalone notability for the article, e.g. this says that a Special Commission on Names and Renamings of Geographical Objects was established by Armenian government in 2001 and that throughout more than 10 years of its activity, 58 renamings were made. Brandmeistertalk 12:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per original nom. Archives908 (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm neutral on whether to keep or delete, but I'd suggest redirecting to List of renamed cities in Armenia over strict deletion. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having a single source is not enough of a reason to delete the page in my opinion. Aintabli (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After a quick search:
    1. Abrahamian, Serob (2017). "Street Names in Yerevan and Their Effect on National Identity" (PDF). Retrieved 22 March 2023. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) (In order to de-Sovietize the country, many square names, place names, building names, street names and other names were changed.)
    2. Index Anatolicus, a project led by Sevan Nişanyan, which lists the old names of places in Armenia as well as Turkey and other regions.
    I believe these could be helpful. I wouldn't cite these sources in the article, but I believe if we dig deep enough, we can find more sources. Aintabli (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aintabli: Unfortunately street names are outside of the scope of this article, the second source is perfect for the list of renamed cities in Armenia article, however, it does not support the pov argued in this article and thus does not give it any more independent notability. TagaworShah (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Chahin, M. (2001). The kingdom of Armenia: a history (2nd revised ed.). Richmond: Curzon. p. 182. ISBN 978-0700714520.
  2. ^ Frye, Richard N. (1984). The History of Ancient Iran. Munich: C.H. Beck. p. 73. ISBN 978-3406093975. The real heirs of the Urartians, however, were neither the Scythians nor Medes but the Armenians.
  3. ^ Redgate, A. E. (2000). The Armenians. Oxford: Blackwell. p. 5. ISBN 978-0631220374. However, the most easily identifiable ancestors of the later Armenian nation are the Urartians.
  4. ^ Lang, David Marshall (1980). Armenia: Cradle of Civilization (3rd ed.). London: Allen & Unwin. pp. 85–111. ISBN 978-0049560093.
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Keep !votes which claim that a single source doesn't make an article non-notable don't really have a grasp of constitutes notability. Just because something exists does not make it notable.Onel5969 TT me 00:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is this is not an applicable use of a DAB Star Mississippi 02:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic sacraments (disambiguation)

Catholic sacraments (disambiguation) (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 Eastern Orthodox and the Anglican Communion never call their sacraments "Catholic".

"Catholic sacraments" always refers to Sacraments of the Catholic Church, and Catholic sacraments and the likes target it.

Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 23:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per CONCEPTDAB. If "a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it and not a disambiguation page", that article being Sacrament. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a pointless dab page as 3 of the 4 items are not about Catholic sacraments, but those of other denominations. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Page has been updated and Nom has been blocked for DE in this area. User talk:Veverve#March 2023

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is now a different disambiguation page than the one that this nomination was based on. Please review changes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. While some editors feel there's inadequate sourcing directly detailing the BLP subject, the trend of the discussion since User:Beccaynr's source presentation is clearly towards a keep outcome. Since there are a number of unsourced contentious assertions in the article it might be wise to remove these assertions until they are fully cited. BusterD (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wasbir Hussain

AfDs for this article:
Wasbir Hussain (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:ACADEMIC and WP:JOURNALIST. Assam Times sources are not reliable Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails both WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. Regarding the comment by GreenC, please note that multiple reviews is only a part of WP:AUTHOR #3; the part about a significant well-know body of work does not seem fulfilled. Jeppiz (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant enough for me to have many reviews. And it says "co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". -- GreenC 02:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is no book review as GreenC claimed. Please check the reference links properly. All are news about the books' release. The Google Scholar search shows very poor numbers of citations. Twinkle1990 (talk)
Huh? Take the first one for example. It's in the "Literary Review" section of The Hindu. This is a book review, which are often found in newspapers, such as The New York Times Review of Books, LA Times, Washington Post, Chicago Times, etc.. all have literary review sections with original book reviews. -- GreenC 05:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So only one or two reviews? Only Two reviews enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC and WP:JOURNALIST? Even no coverage about the person. Just fixed two bare links. Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ACADEMIC and JOURNALISM are different from AUTHOR, only need to pass one. Your trying to set a high bar for notability when it's actually pretty permissive. Not sure why you say "only one or two reviews"... see the reviews at Wasbir_Hussain#Bibliography. You may not like all of them, but it's clearly more than "one or two". -- GreenC 05:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see only two reviews. WP:NAUTHOR is far away from the subject person. I don't see the subject person passes WP:ACADEMIC or WP:JOURNALIST. Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your not required to agree that NAUTHOR is a valid notability guideline, but the community believe so, why it exists. Many of those links are dead and need archive URLs added. You seem to have a bias to delete this article, your not being objective and fair with the sources or the guidelines. -- GreenC 14:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GreenC, please don't misrepresent other users' comments. Nowhere did Twinkle1990 say that disagree with WP:NAUTHOR. They made the perfectly valid comment that the subject here does not meet the criteria of NAUTHOR (an opinion I share). That is entirely different. Jeppiz (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. I would dispute the claim that India does not have a culture of book reviewing. I have frequently seen Indian authors with many book reviews in Indian newspapers, more than I would expect for comparable book publications in the US. We do have two proper major newspaper reviews (not just publication announcements) of Homemakers Without The Men in The Hindu and Hindustan Times. We also a have what looks like a small-press magazine review of Tarun Gogoi in Fried Eye. As far as I can tell, all the rest of the book references in the article are either publication announcements rather than reviews, or stories about related topics that happen to mention the books. I also found another review of Tarun Gogoi in what appears to be a very minor newspaper/magazine, Indigenous Herald [13]. Four reviews of three books is enough for me for WP:AUTHOR, but only just barely. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 06:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: My main concern is this is a BLP and I think the sourcing is not there. I don't think it clears the independent RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth test. BLPs need to be completely based on clearly independent unbiased RS about the subject. In this case I think works created by the subject may be notable, but the article subject is lacking sources for notability.  // Timothy :: talk  06:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not as if some of these reviews do not discuss the subject, e.g. "The author, Wasbir Hussain, has been writing on insurgency and ethnic strife in Assam and other northeastern states for more than two decades" ("Assam's widows of violence: defying all odds", Hindustan Times 14 Sep 2006), but in any event, secondary coverage of his work is about him. This issue seems to arise from time to time in AfD discussions, but BLPs about football players are about their football games, actor BLPs focus on their acting career - this is the work that makes them notable.
    And on ProQuest, I am finding more coverage about his journalism career, including the 2022 Prafulla Chandra Baruah Memorial Journalist Award ("AAJU announces journalism awards", Assam Tribune 11 Apr 2022 ProQuest 2649149301, for his work as chief editor of North East Live), and the 2006 Kunjabala Devi Memorial Award ("KUNJABALA, PABINDRA SARMA AWARDS ANNOUNCED", Hindustan Times 16 Nov 2006, ProQuest 469490762, "Wasbir Hussain, a senior journalist has been chosen for the award for his 12- part series of articles on widows of militants, civilians, etc, who lost their husbands during insurgency and other forms of violence."), 2008 Rotary Award for Excellence in Journalism ("JOURNALIST TO BE AWARDED", Hindustan Times 01 Dec 2008 ProQuest 471390212).
    There is also coverage of some political activity, e.g. ("Indigenous tag splits ‘Assamese Muslims’ wide open" The Hindu 22 July 2022 ProQuest 2692500508), ("HC helps to end tussle between Ajan Peer Durgah managing committees" Assam Tribune, 04 Mar 2022 ProQuest 2635898009), as well as interviews with him about his work, particularly biographies. It tends to be more difficult to find sources for journalists because their own bylined work tends to fill up the search results, but this is only some of the coverage I have found on ProQuest about him that also seems to support WP:BASIC notability as a journalist and author. Beccaynr (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beccaynr you failed here. I honored you as a rescuer, but you have failed there. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per as User:David Eppstein. Four reviews are enough. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Four reviews? Out of said four, two are non-reliable sources. Twinkle1990 (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By his books, he passes Wikipedia:NAUTHOR I want to give you list of reviews and articles about his books.
    1 - Review in Indigenous Herald (reliable as a local newspaper)
    2 - An article in Hindustan Times via HighBeam Research whose primary subject is his book
    3 - In addition to this, Anima Guha, a notable person, said "The book, through real life stories, narrates the struggles of Assamese women who have lost their bread winning partners to insurgency or ethnic strife. Through the book Hussain has brought out the pathos, trauma, struggle and challenges of these remarkable women," see DNA India
    4 - Review in The Hindu
    5 - An article in The Sentinel (Guwahati) whose primary subject is his book
    6 - Review in Fried Eye (seems reliable as a magazine)
    And all these sources are reliable.
    WP:AUTHOR says "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." which has "been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and his book has been primary subject of article in Hindustan Times and The Sentinel (Guwahati) and also primary subject of review in Indigenous Herald (seems reliable as a public affairs magazine), Fried Eye and The Hindu.
    By doing this source analysis, I voted above that he passes Wikipedia:NAUTHOR. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 05:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is often a choice to make between an article about an author and a work. In this case the sources are about the work, not the author. It makes sense to have an article about the work with the little that is known about the author beyond their work is in an About the author section with a name redirect. If the body of reliable BLP sources eventually has enough information about the person, an article can be written.
     // Timothy :: talk  07:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The BLP is mostly unsourced, doesn't meet WP:THREE. Ref 1 says nothing about the article person. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By this references, we can say that his book can be written as significant work and Wikipedia:NAUTHOR says "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." so because of his books we can say that he passes third criteria of NAUTHOR. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 09:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @LordVoldemort728 Claims fails here. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Twinkle1990 I didn't get the point that why you give Google Scholar link. Please Explain. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 13:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In 2023, any book review is not significant but book review in 2006 can be considered as significant as India has no culture of book reviewing. India started doing review about book from 2010s which means before 2010s, only major work by notable authors were reviewed by book critics. By this we can say that book review by The Hindu is a significant review that passes WP:NBOOK as well as WP:NAUTHOR. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 01:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no reliable sources supporting WP:GNG and WP:BASIC notability. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources are unreliable for you? And the listed sources doesn't supports GNG or BASIC but it supports NAUTHOR. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 12:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BASIC includes, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability, and while there are reviews with in-depth coverage of his some of his work as an author, there also appears to be more than trivial coverage of his career in independent, reliable, secondary sources that can be combined under this guideline to help support his notability as a journalist and author. Due to what appears to be a well-recognized career, it will take some time to edit and expand this article, but it appears we have sources that help support his notability and can help develop the article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - here is similar AfD. Concenus shouldn't discriminate both AfD. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability of either of the subjects does not depend on that of the other. That discussion is about someone who has written only one book with lots of reviews. This one is about someone who has written lots of books but with fewer reviews. The two discussions should be treated as independent. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fewer reviews are enough for book published during 2000s in India as during that time it was not common for newspapers to write review about non notable books. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 12:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In Assam, internet was launched for public use in n1998. However, book reviews were regular in print newspapers. I am sure about that. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    During that time only books by major authors were reviewed by book critics. Now we can say that book reviews are trivial but at that time it was significant. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 11:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly speaking, as a daughter of parents who have contextual differences from each others, I am being able to understand many major languages of India. My father keeps 10 newspapers of different languages as old parents are fond of. Print newspapers help a lot. My father was a book reviewer since late 1980s, and at that time book writers used to give a free book and INR 500 after the review was published, even if it was wholly negative. Even so, in W#ikipedia, I don't follow my father's way instead of Wikipedia rules. I don't review or dig into other articles as I am prone to TV and Films. I just stick to TV
    series and movies. If this article survives, let's to. I am not interested on WP:BIO. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment above about secondary support for WP:AUTHOR notability, as well as additional support for WP:BASIC notability as an author and journalist. This article can be further developed with available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Beccaynr, I knew you as an iron hand and rescuer. But what about this? Not enough to meet the criteria as you claimed. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have access to the Wikipedia Library, so I can view more sources, including on ProQuest, that appear to support his notability generally per WP:BASIC, and particularly as a journalist and author. However, at that GScholar link, there is:
    • a critical review of a book he contributed a chapter to: Missing Boundaries: Refugees, Migrants, Stateless and Internally Displaced Persons in South Asia, by Alan B. Anderson, Summer 2005, Pacific Affairs, Vol. 78, 2 (full text available via Gale, "Wasbir Hussain addresses the outflow of Bandladeshi migrants into neighbouring areas in northeastern India")
    • what appears to be a reference to him in the "Economic and Development Policies in the North Eastern Region and the Current Condition" chapter of the Northeast India and Japan (2021) book that I have not searched the T&F database for to determine if I can access, although I have previously found this database to be a good source for Assamese writers. The quote I can view on GScholar is "… Wasbir Hussain observed that the use of the term tends to ignore the distinct identity and sub-nationalist aspirations of diverse tribes, customs, and cultures and, very importantly, the …".
    • "Illusions of Empowerment: Television News and Assamese Identity", in Television & New Media, Vol. 16, 4, 2015, with a quote visible in GScholar: "… Wasbir Hussain, a well-known and respected Assamese news reporter, was hosting a popular show on the television channel News Live. He said he overcame these limitations by …"
    • "Spectacles of empowerment: election and news coverage in India’s marginalised states" by the same author of the above source, with an in-depth overview of the history of news, including two paragraphs of interview at p. 182 with "Wasbir Hussain, a prominent and respected face of Assamese news television, hosts a popular show on the television channel News Live" and appears to quote his work at p. 166.
    • Narayanan, Raviprasad (2014) "India and South Asian Security Issues: Problems Aplenty, Solutions Hazy, Prospects Unsettling," Journal of International and Global Studies: Vol. 5 : No. 2 , Article 9 - another book review, describing Hussain's contribution at p. 118.
    • And there appear to be further sources that refer to and quote him - these results are farther back, because his own writing fills about seven pages of results, but he also appears to be regularly cited in a variety of scholarly works.
    Beccaynr (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Beccaynr I know you are seeing yellow and red marks on the article. This Afd was about WP:JOURNALIST and WP:ACADEMIC, not about WP:AUTHOR. For [[[WP:AUTHOR]] subject person clearly fails at this point. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is essentially no discussion of whether multiple reliable, independent sources cover this individual in reasonable depth. Discussion of "WP:AUTHOR" or the like is unhelpful without that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems fine to me with the sources presented. It's not a slam dunk, but it's at least 4 decent pieces that cover the person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Points above and sourcing in the article indicate that there are multiple independent reviews of his work, so my assessment is that he passes WP:AUTHOR. CT55555(talk) 06:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karole Kasita

Karole Kasita (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 musician. I can only find links that she had a baby, and where I can download her music. Not meeting notability on Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 20:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG, unknown musician. ImperialMajority (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nearly all of the sources covering her are unreliable tabloids/blogs. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise Springs, Arizona

Sunrise Springs, Arizona (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 evidence of a notable populated place here, appears to just be a spring/well with a few buildings. –dlthewave ☎ 19:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable place. ImperialMajority (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This place is only notable at a local level, if that. TH1980 (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sad case. She is someone's daughter. But the consensus here, going by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, is to delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tempe Girl

AfDs for this article:
Tempe Girl (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:No original research, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:ROUTINE portion of WP:NEVENT. The first AFD erroneously cited WP:VICTIM/WP:CRIME; neither of which applies here as the death is not connected to a crime. A cocaine overdose is a tragic death, but there is nothing in the sources to suggest this was anything more than an accidental death. While there is some secondary coverage like CNN, the article is largely sourced to primary sources like National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NAMUS, and DNA Doe Project or to unreliable sources such as Facebook. The sources are slapped together into an original synthesis of the material. Ultimately the news coverage here is thin as well; with the primary goal to appeal to the public to assist in identification of the body. The US has over 100,000 deaths from drug overdoses per year. Cold cases of unidentified bodies are sadly not uncommon with NAMUS recording an average of 4400 unidentified bodies annually in the United States alone, with over a thousand typically remaining unidentified after one year. Active cold cases in the NAMUS database are over 13,000 (most of which get coverage in the news either regional or national); and if we were to include inactive cases it would be multiples of that number. Further, these type of news stories of cold cases are routine coverage, and are done to assist law enforcement in identification, rather than actually covering a topic worthy of encyclopedic inclusion., In short there is nothing unusual about being an unidentified body, or sadly being a teenager dying from drug use. What we have here is a very clear application of WP:NOT. 4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article seems like propaganda; ImperialMajority (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact I can't find SIGCOV in The Arizona Republic or any of Phoenix's four major TV stations on this has me raising my eyebrows. What is going on here? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just my soapbox thought: I think it may have to do with the fact she was either Native American or hispanic. If she was a young white girl, they'd be all over it. Sad but that's how it is. Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think race has much to do with it. The NAMUS database has many women of all races in it, and coverage is pretty similar to this or less in most of these cases. Unidentified bodies are not all that uncommon sadly, and a large number go without much media recognition regardless of the demographics of the person who has died. This is particularly true in cases where there is no suspicion of murder, which is the case here. Honestly many of these cases only get coverage during a slow news cycle when there isn't much else to report, and they need something to fill the empty space.4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The CNN piece seems ok, other sources seem to Medium and various blogs, so not much for RS. This was 20 yrs ago, I would think most coverage would be archived by now, unsure how the online coverage was then for this event. I'll see what I can turn up. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a Gnewspaper search for "body found Tempe" from April 1, 2002 to May 31, 2022, [14], not much of anything turns up. Seems odd, but I'm not seeing GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete for lack of coverage. Not meeting GNG, no coverage of the event found, limited media coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Well, yes I did contribute to the expansion of the article, considering how it appeared in 2018 when I first decided to work on the "yearning for expansion" page, as it stood with all nine or so references. The individual who created the article is no longer active on Wiki. I agree there is little material out there, but I didn't create the page.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kieronoldham I am not seeing any reasoning based in policy for your keep vote. The fact that an editor created the article and that others such as yourself put work into the article is not relevant to the policies by which we evaluate content. Please take time to read WP:Notability. In order for a keep argument to be valid it needs to demonstrate that the subject passes either WP:BASIC as a person, WP:NEVENT as an event, or more broadly WP:GNG. None of these criteria have been met. In order to keep the article we would need more secondary sources with in-depth significant coverage in order to demonstrate that the topic would pass the relevant policy guidelines. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I abstain from voting, but would vote keep if the article could be improved with some better sources. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I knew where this discussion was headed weight-wise upon clicking on this discussion board, 4meter4 (and have to agree with much)- that was the reasoning behind my reply. The search found almost nothing of substance beyond the likes of missingkids.org entries to populate back in '18 (and it seems like there is not much more to be found five years later). However, I do see some validity in the WP VICTIM argument for keep. There is the likes of CNN and the likes of maricopa.gov. (that should meet significant coverage and weaken the original research idea). That's more than some sparsely refereced stub articles have regarding obscure crime cases which aren't currently flagged for deletion. But then, maybe the article would need more sources?--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately primary sources such as missingkids.org and maricopa.gov do not count towards GNG as they are primary source and not secondary sources. WP:GNG policy specifically requires secondary sources. The OR problems are related to the original synthesis of primary sources currently in the article's text. Finding new secondary sources or primary sources doesn't solve the OR problems currently extent in the article's text as currently written. The article would require a complete re-write to solve the WP:SYNTH issues. Further, WP:VICTIM does not apply to this subject as no crime was committed. That policy only applies to situations where the events in question are attached to a crime. In this case the sources specifically stated that there was no evidence that a crime had taken place. As such WP:CRIME/VICTIM does not apply to this subject.4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing to support independent notability apart from a name given to yet another dead body of an unknown person, whose death from a drugs overdose has been determined not to have been a homicide. Not dissimilar to thousands of such cases, on a daily basis, unfortunately. Note that two bodies were discovered. -The Gnome (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Not sure exactly why (from a 'what does society care about anymore?' perspective) they garnered enough coverage to be notable, but consensus is they have. Courcelles (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Island Boys

AfDs for this article:
Island Boys (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)

These men are more well-known for their controversial behavior on social media than their musical careers so they fail WP:BAND. Also the first AFD that was held soon after this article was created was less than decisive in determining to Keep this article. I think their notoriety might have increased in the past year but not their musical success. Being considered a "meme" and being controversial are not the same as notability. Liz Read! Talk! 18:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BAND; apart from that, these influencers are not notable apart from one viral video of which their popularity has slowly been dying off. ImperialMajority (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - certainly fails WP:BAND, but they pass GNG in my opinion. The Insider article[15] (Insider culture is considered generally reliable at WP:RSP) is very significant coverage and independent of the subject. NBC News is considered generally reliable at WP:RSP, and this article[16] is very significant coverage and independent of the subject. The Daily Dot is considered "fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact" at WP:RSP[17][18]. Yahoo! News is considered generally reliable at WP:RSP[19], The New Zealand Herald is considered generally reliable at WP:RSP[20] (though article is syndicated through news.com.au), XXL is considered generally reliable at WP:RSMUSIC[21], AllHipHop is considered generally reliable at WP:RSMUSIC[22]. TMZ is considered questionable at WP:RSP, but there are several articles dedicated to the subjects there[23].
There was the reporting on the murder suspect arrested at their home, arguably more tangential/trivial, but probably only notable because of the involvement of the subjects; People[24] CBS[25], HotNewHipHop[26][27] and Paper[28]. They are also the subject of a recent documentary[29] (Axios, generally reliable at WP:RSP). I think notability is evident and the article should be improved to reflect this. Mbdfar (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per @Mbdfar. It's clear the initial event was what gave them a platform, but subsequent events have shown notability independent of their first video. They clearly meet WP:GNG. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (sigh...) - Alas, we must admit that we're in a new age where people become famous -- or in WP terms, generally notable -- for dumber and dumber reasons. One problem here is that the article is structured as if these guys are a band, so several of the voters so far are judging them on musical success. Actually, the article should describe them as "social media personalities" and go forward from there, like with Charli D'Amelio, Khaby Lame, and others with whatever chutzpah is needed to get into that line of work. I think these guys are famous for stupid reasons, but they have indeed been noticed by the reliable media for their talentless shenanigans. Just like the rest of the hypermedia, we're stuck with 'em. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My positions and arguments are mostly identical to that of @Mbdfar. While I sympathize with @Doomsdayer520 on how we're having more social media people getting WP pages, this is the route that the world is taking. Personal opinion aside, I'm with the "BANDwagon" (no pun intended) that this is a BAND fail but a GNG pass. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely fails to comply the rule "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Marco Ettore (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how WP:NOTDATABASE applies to an 8,000 byte biographical article. Mbdfar (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The NOTNEWS argument is very powerful here. None of the "keep" !votes makes it likely that this will be reported on even just a month from now. Randykitty (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Nablus attack

2023 Nablus attack (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:NOTNEWS Not important enough to merit an article on its own. Compare with 2023 Nablus incursion (11 deaths). Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Recent event of no visible significant lasting impact. WP:NOTNEWS (If the article survives, there is much scraping to be done, with unsourced material, use of a Twitter video as a source, far too much quoting.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This event is important enough to merit an article. This event has been reported on by notable major media outlets in at least 13 countries (Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan, Germany, US, Belgium, Israel, Mexico, Argentina, France, Italy, Uruguay, Guatemala, Singapore and Namibia), including BILD, Spiegel, RTL, ZDF, Al Arabiya, the Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, Barron's, KAN News, L'Orient, The Straits Times, among others. I have 40 references for this attack and I will add more. This attack has caused a international incident between the Palestinian Authority and the German government, and while it is far from the first attack on a civilian vehicle in the West Bank, it is the first reported attack on a civilian vehicle driven by German tourists/and non-Jewish nationals of European country as far as I am aware. This is very peculiar incident that has received significant attention due to the origin of the victims, as well as the attack itself. (Redacted) I would be happy to discuss this article with any other editor, and listen to their input and take their feedback to heart in order to work to create the best version of this article possible.Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure if it should be kept or removed. However, I think the article needs some improvement though if it is kept, for example all the references are piled up next to each other at the end of the introduction.
Vamsi20 (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comment, and your helpful suggestion that some improvements be made. I would be happy to make improvements to the article, regarding the references being piled up- do you think it would look better if I pile them up further down in the article? Or maybe there some other way to make it look better? Because I agree with you, I honestly don’t like the way the end of the introduction looks either, so I would be interested in whatever you suggest to do to make it look better. Thank you so much for your time and I appreciate your help with this. :)Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obvious notnews failure, also many of the claims of "attempted lynching" are based on incredibly poor sources like Yoseph Haddad's twitter account and the Israellycool blog. The actual reliable sources say nothing of the sort. nableezy - 20:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your opinion, however I dispute your assertion that this is an obvious notnews failure, because there are approximately 40 references, the bulk of which are major news outlets including BILD, Spiegel, RTL, ZDF, Al Arabiya, the Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, Barron's, KAN News, L'Orient, The Straits Times, among others. Are these incredibly poor sources? The Israellycool reference is an article containing the English language interview with one of the victims of the attempted lynching, and it mostly just quotes what the victim himself stated in the embedded video, and also quotes the German ambassador. The video shared by Yoseph Haddad (who is a Palestinian Arab), was taken by Palestinian witnesses of the attempted lynching. I have references containing this same video from major news outlets such as BILD (a well respected German news outlet). I can also reference excellent Palestinian sources with the same video and/or that corroborate the information I have posted from other international sources, such as WAFA News Agency and other official Palestinian Authority sources if you would like?Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those list of sources boils down to one source, an AFP story carried in a number of outlets. Its amazing to see somebody give a list of 20 references to the same story and pretend like they have 20 sources. And the funniest thing about is that none of them call it an attempted lynching lol. nableezy - 21:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • snowball delete, At a time, when there is hardly a day when a young Palestinian isn't killed, it is absurd to have an article about this incidence. Also, someone apparently has mind-reading capabilities, "knowing" that this was an "attempted lynching". And Israellycool is as far from RS as you can get, Huldra (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you are voting to delete this article only because of your POV. It is sad to see you insert your own POV violating WP:POV and make an inflammatory statement which is not factual and not backed up by any references, and it also irrelevant to this article and the discussion surrounding it. I have always greatly respected both you and Nableezy, both for your expertise and professionalism and I am very disappointed by your comment, Hilda. If the issue was something more substantive with the actual article, ok, but the only problem you could find was that Israellycool is one of the more than 30 references listed in the article. It is not listed on the unreliable source list, and the source linked if you care to read it is an article containing the English language interview with one of the victims of the attempted lynching, and it is mostly just quotes what the victim himself stated in the embedded video, and also quotes the German ambassador. There are many articles about this attack from very excellent, reliable, esteemed and knowledgeable Palestinian sources such as WAFA News Agency, Shehaab News, Al-Quds News, Shehada News, and many others if you would like me to add them to the article? I have linked Al Arabiya to this article and I can also link Al Jazeera and Arab News (UAE) if you would like? The only issue you can find with the article (or at least the only that you mentioned) is that I linked to an Israeli blog (1 out of 30 sources) and literally nothing else was mentioned that has anything at all to do with the article.Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong: I didn't vote delete because it was mentioned by "Israellycool", I voted delete beacause it is totally Non Notable incident. And as Nableezy notes: one source parroted all over the internet is still only one source, Huldra (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of those sources are a single source, a single AFP article you cited some 15 times to 15 different reprints. This is the same as this. They are not separate sources. And it doesnt say the word lynch anywhere in it! nableezy - 01:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed the sources you mentioned referred to this as a lynching, it was other sources that did. However I appreciate your input and I have taken your advice to heart and I have removed the mentioned of lynch and lynching. I am working to improve the article sufficiently so that it may not be deleted.Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. I mean, give us a break. When people are being killed daily, a couple of unfortunate tourists who got their tires slashed is hardly a blip on the horizon. It will soon be forgotten, and so should this "article". Zerotalk 02:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax per Once's update below and the most recent update in the German press. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or, failing that, draftify. A limited event which, while subject to some coverage, is of limited relevance. Seems a clear example of why we have WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM guidelines. WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE and other considerations also apply. Guliolopez (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the information provided, the 2023 Nablus attack appears to be a notable event. It involved an attack on foreign tourists visiting a Palestinian Authority-controlled area, which is generally prohibited for Israelis, and resulted in violence and property damage. The incident received media coverage and international reactions, including a response from the German Ambassador to Israel.
Additionally, the incident sheds light on the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians and highlights the issue of hate education in the region. Therefore, it can be argued that the attack has a historical significance beyond its immediate impact.
According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, an event may be considered notable if it receives significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the event or subjects involved. The coverage should also be enduring, with the event receiving coverage over an extended period or having lasting impact or historical significance.
Based on this criteria, the 2023 Nablus attack may be considered notable as it received coverage in various reliable sources, including news outlets and official statements, and is likely to have lasting impact and historical significance due to its implications on the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, it ultimately depends on the quality and quantity of coverage and the editorial judgment of Wikipedia editors. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we want light shed on the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis, we have a number of articles on that topic, and it would seem ridiculous to use an event that involved no Israelis to do that. It's hard to see any significant outflow of that. Germany is not going to invade Palestine. That a German ambassador said that it's bad that German tourists get attacked is not some important result of lasting value. About the only reason I could see to have an article on a tire slashing is to demonize Palestinians, and that should not be the goal on Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While there may already be articles on the topic of the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis, each event and incident can provide a unique perspective and context to that ongoing conflict. It is important to report on events as they happen, regardless of whether or not they directly involve Israelis or Palestinians, as they can shed light on the larger issues at play. The fact that German nationals were attacked while visiting a Palestinian-controlled area is relevant to the ongoing conflict, as it highlights the risks and dangers involved in travel to certain areas.
Additionally, the response from the German ambassador, as well as the international reaction, is significant and worth reporting on. It demonstrates the impact that such events can have on diplomatic relations between countries and can provide insight into the attitudes and opinions of various stakeholders.
It is not the goal of Wikipedia to demonize any particular group or to take sides in a conflict. Rather, it aims to provide neutral and factual information on a wide range of topics, including current events. By reporting on this incident, Wikipedia is fulfilling its mission of providing accurate and comprehensive information on a variety of subjects, including ongoing conflicts and their impact on individuals and societies. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not why we write articles. This non event is already forgotten. Selfstudier(talk) 10:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that some events may not be as significant as others, it is not the role of Wikipedia editors to decide what is worth documenting and what is not. Wikipedia's goal is to provide accurate and unbiased information on a wide range of topics, including events that may seem insignificant at first glance. Even if an event is not widely known or has been forgotten, it may still have relevance or value to certain individuals or groups, and documenting it may help to provide a more complete understanding of a particular topic or issue. Additionally, just because an event is not widely known does not mean it will not become relevant or significant in the future. Therefore, it is important for Wikipedia to provide comprehensive coverage of all topics, even those that may seem insignificant at the moment. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it is not the role of Wikipedia editors to decide what is worth documenting and what is not. That's why we have AfD, to get rid of non notable non events of no lasting significance. Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that Wikipedia has a process called Articles for Deletion (AfD), which allows the community to discuss and decide whether an article should be deleted based on its notability and significance. However, until the AfD process determines that an article should be deleted, it is still part of Wikipedia and can be improved upon by editors.
Furthermore, while AfD can be a useful tool to weed out articles that don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it's important to remember that notability is not the only criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. For example, articles can also be notable for their impact on society, historical significance, or cultural significance, even if the event itself is relatively minor. Ultimately, it's up to the community to decide whether an article should be included on Wikipedia or not, but until then, editors can continue to work on improving the article. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If an event has significance in the future, the page should be created then. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It is important to report on events as they happen"? No, it is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. WP:NOTNEWS --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability for an event is determined by whether it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the event itself. The notability would depend on the level of coverage it has received in reliable sources, and whether that coverage extends beyond a brief mention in the news. The German Ambassador to Israel's reaction to the 2023 Nablus attack can be considered significant in the present in terms of notability, as it represents an official statement from a diplomatic representative of a country regarding a notable event. Ultimately, it is up to the Wikipedia community to evaluate the sources and determine whether the event meets the notability standards for inclusion. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a two-sentence personal tweet from an ambassador automatically makes something eligible for an article, we're doomed, I tell ya, doomed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Twitterpedia! Iskandar323 (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, statements made on social media platforms are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, as they may not meet the criteria for reliable sources, such as editorial oversight or a reputation for fact-checking. A statement made on a personal Twitter account does not necessarily make it eligible for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. However, in some cases, statements made by a reputable individual or organization on social media may be used as a source if they are properly attributed and corroborated by other reliable sources.
Additionally the statement was made on an official account, the embassy's official Twitter account. This is important because official accounts are typically subject to more scrutiny and oversight, and are less likely to be subject to misinformation or manipulation.
The Straits Times and AFP, see the ref in the article, are both reliable sources, and they have reported on the statements made by the German Ambassador to Israel in response to the 2023 Nablus attack. As such, these statements can be included in the Wikipedia article, provided that they are attributed to the relevant sources. The response to critics can also be included as long as it is properly sourced:
To the critics of my tweet: We know the pain of Palestinians. We support their peaceful aspirations towards a state. We know the great Palestinian hospitality. But yesterday two tourists were in grave danger because they were chased by a mob and that can never be justified. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax it has become clear that at least one of the two 'tourists' works for an Israeli advocacy campaign. See for example this recent article in the German press. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep An important event reported by important media in over 10 countries. led to an international incident between the Palestinian Authority and the German government. and characterizes the Palestinian public's attitude towards foreigners. Eladkarmel (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By the criteria of WP:Notability, this event is notable given the international news coverage (WP:GEOSCOPE) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs) 22:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was carried in one wire service, and beyond that what WP:GEOSCOPE actually says is but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. nableezy - 16:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is interesting to see who has not reported this, Haaretz the Israeli daily newspaper of record and none of the international press, not WAPO, Reuters, AP, AFP, NYT all of whom report on any significant event in the West Bank.Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Longhornsg, Eladkarmel, InfinityKnight. Seems notable enough to stay. Tourists are not frequently attacked on the West Bank, and it is also noteworthy that Germany issued an official condemnation.. Tombah (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A protest from the German ambassador is totally mundane and routine. Dog bites man stuff. It would be more remarkable or noteworthy if the ambassador said nothing. It is a basic task of an ambassador to make token statements. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Has plenty of IS RS sources to pass GNG and the sources note the international character of the incident and government responses. Government responses show this will have lasting impact. Here are sources from the article. [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. These are English language sources, so there will be more in German, etc.  // Timothy :: talk  08:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    three of those are the same source (this is the same as this while this is a partisan adaptation of the AFP story.) The three others are local Israeli papers. nableezy - 09:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "People threw stuff at someone" in no way approaches WP:Notability (events), even if it's true. I'm also advising participants to keep the WP:BLUDGEONING to a minimum; say your piece and move on. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The event fails NOTNEWS as several editors have noted. This is a classic case of a brief burst of coverage that fades quickly away. I had a quick look, and all the coverage I can find comes from the first 72 hours after the event. In the absence of lasting coverage analyzing the event, all we can do is write a news story. That is not our mission, and frankly we're not that good at it. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lawachara Jame Mosque

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

There are a quarter million mosques in Bangladesh.[36] There is no evidence that this is one of the notable ones. The first cited sources does not address it directly or in depth. Neither did the second (judging from what it is cited to support - it's dead now), and the publisher has no reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Searches in English and Bengali found only Wikipedia mirrors, no reliable sources that contain significant coverage of it. Worldbruce (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is very little information available on this mosque.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of One Piece characters#Shanks and I'll protect the redirect to stop the IP shenanigans. History under the redirect if there is material to merge. Star Mississippi 02:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shanks (One Piece)

Shanks (One Piece) (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)

An IP editor keeps recreating the page of this character. He very clearly fails WP:GNG and should be a list section and nothing more. All the reception is sourced to content-farms or trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: Most One Piece articles feel copied from a wiki and nearly rushed. Same with Boa Hancock who has only one sentence in reception while Chopper still has the same copied referenced sentences in the actual lead section. I removed most of unreliable sources from Sanji too and it ended up looking worse. I think this already happened last year to the point I was warned or something for merging back the articles.Tintor2 (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of One Piece characters per nominator and Tintor2. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The reception looks ok at first glance, but then it's the combination of listicles and low quality chournalism like . "One Piece Cosplay Taps into Shanks' Fierce Power". Sigh. Maybe one day this character will get some serious literary analysis, but my BEFORE right now does not suggest One Piece has been noticed by any serious scholars. It's a pop culture phenomena, yes, but minor characters like Shanks don't need their own Wikipedia articles yet. Sadly, it's WP:FANCRUFT. Redirect for now, and maybe it can be salvaged eventually (I recently restored and proved, I hope, the notability of Yoruichi Shihōin). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of One Piece characters#Shanks; I agree with Piotrus in that the reception section is based too much on churnalism. While it is possible Shanks could be notable in the future, he just doesn't seem that way now. Link20XX (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - there is nothing worth merging. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 00:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW close; overwhelming community consensus as eloborared in WP:NPOL is that members of state/provincial legislatures in federal systems are presumed notable. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Townsend (Louisiana politician)

Taylor Townsend (Louisiana politician) (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)

BLP look like an personal advertisement Endrabcwizart (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the last sentence, what's your problem with this content? As a state legislator, Townsend clearly meets notability. DS (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Humanoid robot#Timeline of developments. Star Mississippi 02:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omeife

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

Not notable entry. Passing mentions and week links used in the article. FightBrightTigh (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uniccon Group

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

Not notable organization according to WpNcorp. Conflict of interests FightBrightTigh (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The company is notably and has been garnering continental/global attention, and appropriate references have been added. Nominating for deletion appears malicious. How about you suggest ways of improving the article or state proof of COI? Victorh7 (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Humanoid robot#Timeline of developments, and move references there. BD2412 T 13:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. ABHammad (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Assessing a company's WP page using the WP:GNG may be unsuitable. WP has a WP:NCORP that clearly states the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Based on that, the company passes the notability guideline. Victorh7 (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sources fail WP:ORGCRIT. I did not evaluate the possibility of a redirect so that could still be an option per BD2412. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP: NCORP states that: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."
    The company "UNICCON Group" created Africa's first humanoid robot which has been adopted by the Federal Government of Nigeria through NITDA to drive Nigeria's digital literacy goal. Obviously, this is a significant effect on society, history and education. Victorh7 (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.Onel5969 TT me 00:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pati Parameshwar (film)

Pati Parameshwar (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)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, only 1 review found in BEFORE. Tagged for notability DonaldD23 talk to me 16:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Campbell

Sharon Campbell (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be one of a number of drive-by nominations of British ambassadors to Costa Rica, but for me the article in The Guardian alone is enough to comply with the WP:GNG. Other coverage so far is a little thin, but there are many other hits, as we would expect with a British ambassador. The GNG is not of course anything to do with importance, so in theory an ambassador could prove to be non-notable, but thanks to the coverage they get in their international role from journalists and academics it would be hard for one to achieve such obscurity. And what may be "routine coverage" for an ambassador is at a higher level than for less notable roles. The GNG gives this helpful definition: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Moonraker (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A search of ("Sharon Campbell" ambassador) did not come up with significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Moonraker. I'd say the current coverage is thin, but is enough to support the article remaining. Surely, the article should be improved, but the OP should remember that AfD is not substitution for article cleanup.Historyday01 (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is clearly possible to expand the article using reliable sources about her time as an ambassador.[38][39][40][41] -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources are all 1 line mentions and none is in detail about Campbell (nor is the subject of the source). Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really believe the above mentioned sources are adequate to create a BLP?  // Timothy :: talk  05:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO. Source eval:
  • 1.  "Sharon Campbell - GOV.UK". www.gov.uk. Retrieved 2 January 2020. Government website, fails IS
  • 2. ^ "Change of Her Majesty's Ambassador to Dominican Republic and Non-Resident Ambassador to the Republic of Haiti". GOV.UK. Retrieved 10 March 2021. Government website, fails IS
  • 3. ^ Adewunmi, Bim (3 July 2011). "A very diplomatic marriage". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2 January 2020. Human interest story / interview. Not IS RS.
  • 4. ^ "Appointment: Ambassador to Costa Rica and Non Resident Ambassador to Nicaragua". The Times. 25 June 2011. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 2 January 2020. Government notice published in London paper about appointment, not IS, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

From above

  • [42] mention with short quote
  • [43] Article about a completely different subject, mentions the subject with short quote, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth
  • [44] mention with short quote, article about another subject, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth
  • [45] mention, not even a quote. About another subject, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
Nothing in ProQuest or JSTOR.
BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. THis has none. The keep votes have failed to provide any IS RS for this BLP.  // Timothy :: talk  05:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Timothy. LibStar (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Timothy's well-done source assessment. Ambassadors are not automatically notable.Onel5969 TT me 20:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think she's notable enough for Wikipedia. "Ambassadors are not inherently notable", is there a discussion that came to that conclusion? According to Wikipedia ambassadors are the highest ranking diplomats in international diplomacy which I believe would suggest notability. Also she held ambassadorial roles as British Ambassador to Haiti and British Ambassador to Costa Rica, both have their own articles which seems to suggest that they are notable and would lead to dead links and we would no longer know that the Costa Rican and Haitian Ambassadors were the same person and so devalues Wikipedia. She's featured in a British Broadsheet The Guardian A very diplomatic marriage, and other articles, for example in Costa Rica: New ambassadors: A foreign-service love story and Departing British ambassadors reflect on four-year tenure in Costa Rica Piecesofuk (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The sources provided by Piecesofuk are sufficient to pass GNG. That said, the community determined that ambassadors do not have any inherent notability and must be evaluated through GNG. A lenghy discussion about WP:DIPLOMAT occurred in 2015. --Enos733 (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Macey Kilty

Macey Kilty (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 athlete, no coverage outside of school websites or wrestling websites related to Team USA (where she's only mentioned by name). Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://uww.org/athletes/kilty-macey-ellen
Macey has earned medals in the highest level of competitive freestyle wrestling. Many of the pages that link there have other athletes from the same tournaments. There are plenty of articles discussing her career. Mattjrocha (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there is also articles in other wiki languages for them: https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macey_Kilty Mattjrocha (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.scraplife.com/pages/macey-kilty#:~:text=Macey%20Kilty%20from%20Stratford%2C%20WI,Bronze%20medalist%20that%20same%20year.
She is also sponsored by scraplife a pretty notable company within wrestling. Mattjrocha (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 16:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi akhileswar das

Yogi akhileswar das (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 sources found for this person. Facebook, youtube, then peters off. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep and move to Lincoln Way (disambiguation). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Way (disambiguation)

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

There is only one Way here, the street in San Francisco. Most of the rest of the entries are related to the Lincoln Highway, with four bridges (for which there's Lincoln Highway Bridge (disambiguation)) and a tunnel thrown in, none of which are generally referred to as Ways afaik. There is a neighborhood of Clairton, Pennsylvania, called Lincoln Way, but apparently not notable enough to mention in the Clairton article. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why? There are lots of entries about segments of the Lincoln Highway (and hence partial matches only), but only one distinct one, in Australia, and that's already covered by a hatnote in the main article. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 16:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pollen (programming language)

Pollen (programming language) (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)

Absolutely no proof of notability, created by a COI editor ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two included sources do not prove WP:GNG as one is Github (generally unreliable unless stated as per local consensus) and the other is not independent one (both fail per WP:RS, first one per WP:SPS). A09 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I considered nominating this when I left the COI template on the creator's userpage, but was about to go to bed and didn't have time for WP:BEFORE and then kind of forgot about the whole thing. Looking around now, I see nothing to suggest notability.
n.b. There is also another language called Pollen that is not this one. I don't think that one's notable either, but it's certainly more notable than the one being discussed here. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 18:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have discussed my reasons to keep the article on my talk page but I've been continuously attacked by Eejit43 and Emily. I believe the quality of the page is good enough for a stub and other Wikipedia users need to have a chance to discover this article to read and contribute to it. Additionaly, I believe they might have a connection with the author of the "Pollen" macro system that Emily specified and linked to (the pollen in this article is about a general purpose programming language). The project has been receiving vandalism, pishing and false reports. They also don't seem to have any deep understanding of the Pollen programming language, as they specified they never heard of it (and maybe is one of the reasons they want to delete the article). They also don't seem to have enough knowledge about systems programming languages to even use Pollen. M4t3uz (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: M4t3uz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
M4t3uz, having seen hundreds of AFD discussions, this article is highly unlikely to be Kept since you are the only vocal supporter of this opinion. You'd have better luck asking for the article to be "Draftified" and moved to Draft space so you could continue to work on it and improve it. Once it is deleted, it is gone. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
M4t3uz, editors do not need to have expert-level knowledge of a topic to edit an article about it. Also, It would be a mistake to believe that you have ownership over any article on Wikipedia, even ones you create. Accusing others of have harmful motives without evidence goes against Wikipedia's requirement of assuming good faith towards fellow editors. I've read nothing on your talk page that could be considered as an attack; it is your close connection to the topic that makes you perceive them as such. Having emotional detachment from your work on Wikipedia is essential, which is exactly why we don't like editors writing about topics where they have a conflict of interest. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I tried to userfy the page to as a way to draft it, but it may seem as an attempt to take ownership of it, as you mentioned. The objective was to allow other editors to access the page because I thought the topic would be unlisted in all possible ways. I took some time to learn about drafts today, and it seems I can still link to it from other pages. Drafts are a relatively new feature to me.
The Wikipedia Draft space was created in 2010. It was designed as a space where new articles could be created and worked on without immediately being published to the main Wikipedia site. The Draft space allows articles to be reviewed and improved by editors before they are moved to the main space. This helps ensure that articles meet Wikipedia's guidelines for quality and accuracy before they are made public. M4t3uz (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I linked to the other Pollen solely to draw attention to it not being the same thing, in case others weren't paying enough attention and thought otherwise. I'd never heard of either of them before this. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 23:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it fails WP:GNG. Then I would consider salting due to the above comments from the article's creator.Onel5969 TT me 01:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: clearly non-notable topic. As such it should not be moved to draft or userspace, especially with the COI concerns. If it becomes notable in the future, they can create a draft at that point. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 15:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UKTV Car of the Year 2007

UKTV Car of the Year 2007 (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 see anything notable about this Chidgk1 (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't even remember creating it!! Lol!! Delete it if needs be... JRRobinson (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced, non notable and author also supports deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, no substantive edits by other users. @JRRobinson:, you can tag this as {{db-g7}} and save us five days. Star Mississippi 14:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And in return, maybe you and your friends could remove the topic ban you unjustly put on me..., that would save everyone from poorly edited pages, which have been rife recently... JRRobinson (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    G7 doesn't apply as they aren't the only contributor. I don't agree that the 30 intermediate edits are small enough to warrant a G7, so we can just see out the AfD. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus was against lifting the topic ban @JRRobinson when it was just brought to a 3rd discussion. It has nothing to do with "friends" and I suggest you drop the stick or you're going to end up with a broader ban. @Lee Vilenski that's a surprising conclusion? This is the difference in content. Either way, apologies for giving you wrong information on that @JRRobinson Star Mississippi 15:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    G7 isn't really designed for an article history of 15 years. It shouldn't matter waiting a couple days. I'd recommend dropping the stick with your topic ban JRRobinson. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How can that be consensus when only one side of the argument was heard...??? JRRobinson (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly non-notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bladins International School of Malmö

Bladins International School of Malmö (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 sources given to show how this school is notable - has been uncited since at least 2007 Chidgk1 (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Found a large number of sources, a selection of which are linked here ([51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]). Cleanup is definitely necessary, but this isn't a WP:TNT situation because of the article's small size, and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I'd recommend a withdrawl here because of the plethora of coverage that easily satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Nomader (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The last two sources above don't refer to Bladins International School, which was founded in 1987, but to Bladins skola, a primary school founded in 1868 (according to the last of the sources above). In the 1960s, the school changed its model of governance, became a foundation, and branched out to include a secondary school. They also run a Montessori school and a preschool, in addition to the international school. The international school has been in the press as shown above and I think it is independently notable; the Bladins skola foundation is definitely notable (I'll provide a few sources to support that) and if the international school is not found to be notable, it can at least have a section in an article about Bladins skola. --bonadea contributions talk 09:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate the clarification -- I was pulling sources based on the name found at sv:Bladins skola which was linked as an alternative language and didn't realize my mistake. I still stand by my !vote but my withdrawal suggestion may have been an overstatement.
    Nomader (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Bonadea. /Julle (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that she passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 00:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Alexia of Greece and Denmark

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

Notability issues. For context, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greece#Titles_of_royal_family_biography_articles. I am deliberately not pinging the people who commented there (their opinion on the matter is easy to guess so that would be WP:VOTESTACKING). If this ends up deleted, I intend to nominate three other similar articles (but a grouped nomination would risk a WP:TRAINWRECK).

If you cut all the info about other people she’s related to, the article does not contain much, because she’s had a rather normal life (she was born here, she grew up there, she studied here, she works as a teacher, she married someone). But that is not an argument for deletion. There is no question that sources only exist because she is part of a famous family, but our job is to evaluate whether those sources meet WP:GNG, not second-guess the decisions of the editors-in-chief of those sources.

The problem, however, is the lack of depth among independent sources.

For instance, this Vogue article offers a detailed account of the wedding. It is very likely reliable. However, the amount of content usable by Wikipedia is "she married person X at date Y in place Z". We don’t care about the dress she wore, what persons were in attendance, etc. So that’s not in-depth.

There’s a bunch of entries on royalty websites / books etc. such as ref #1 ("Burke's Royal Families of the World"). I have no doubt that those accurately represent matters such as births, deaths, marriages, succession laws and the like. However, those are glorified phone books: they cover everyone (with some royal connection) and provide the same standardized details. Not in-depth.

Finally, one can find a few tabloid / gossip sources online, but those are obviously not reliable. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed that the coverage of encyclopedic details is lacking in depth and very much limited to her family rather than to her. What do Greek sources look like? JoelleJay (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Had she been merely a princess, I would have supported the nomination. That is basically what happened to two articles on daughters of Michael I of Romania. But the fact that she was heiress presumptive to the Greek throne is enough to make her notable in my opinion. Yes the article is lacking in many ways and is certainly not perfect, but I think there could be room for improvement if we look into Greek sources as well. Keivan.fTalk 20:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Not only was her father a reigning monarch at the time of her birth, She was the Crown Princess at the time of her birth until the birth of her brother, and therefore the heir to the throne of Greece. Absolutely notable. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of them were born to a reigning monarch, but more importantly neither of them was ever heir to the throne of a country. Keivan.fTalk 03:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those things are valid keep reasons. She doesn't meet GNG, so she should not have a standalone biography. JoelleJay (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then other AfDs about other articles should not be brought up as they are not valid reasons for deletion either. Keivan.fTalk 05:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This and this are plainly trivial mentions. The relevant parts of this source is "Princess Alexia of Greece and Denmark, who lives in Lanzarote with her family, attended the event accompanied by her husband" and "Princess Alexia and her family had front row seats during the funeral", plus some routine background info -- does not count towards BASIC. This one is almost exclusively about the alleged plot, again with no more than brief background information. INVALIDBIO still applies: her "notability" is still exclusively derived from her royal family relations. Avilich (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's important to debate the borderline trivial ones, unless you think every source in the article and above is, which seems unlikely. There is enough to make as well sourced article, which is what I think WP:BASIC is all about. I also don't think it matters if her notability is "exclusively derived from her royal family relations" because that is the case for every royal person the world over. CT55555(talk) 06:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourcing has been found both in the article and in this AfD. Also please keep in mind that nominators are expected to determine whether there are sources for subjects in their native script WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion (see step B7). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:INHERITED states "Newborn babies are not notable except for an heir to a throne or similar". The subject of the article at the time of her birth was heir to the Greek throne, so long as a reliable source is cited to verify this fact, my understanding is that she has inherent notability from day 1, (even though she was later displaced as heir presumptive). In addition, I view the sources cited in the article and AfD sufficient to pass WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Here's a couple more. This translated from Vanity Fair, Spanish edition.[62] and this also in Spanish, presumably a reliable source.[63] Rupples (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - per Necrothesp KatoKungLee (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Carrique Ponsonby

William Carrique Ponsonby (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)

Certainly accomplished during his time, but nothing in the article suggests notability, and none of the sources are in-depth about them. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 10:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 12:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a good and varied career / life / profile, but indeed it is not clear why this person, of hundreds like him at any period of history, should have an article. No clear claim of notability, appears to fail GNG and BIO specs. SeoR (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Idol (season 16). Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cade Foehner

AfDs for this article:
Cade Foehner (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)

Appears to be mostly non-notable outside of his marriage to Gabby Barrett. Received some coverage for his American Idol appearance but didn't finish in the top three so he doesn't meet WP:SINGER#9. Has one single released by Hollywood Records but only the one so no #5. I see no charting, awards, or anything else that SINGER asks for. Could redirect to Barrett's page or his season of American Idol; the latter is probably the better option of the two. QuietHere (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 12:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • REDIRECT to the TV show, can't see any substantial claim of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the season of the tv show, outside of the limited appearances there, he's not gained much (if any) critical notice. Oaktree b (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to American Idol (season 16). I cannot find sufficient in-depth coverage about the subject himself (e.g., outside of mentions related to his spouse/child) to justify a WP:BLP. --Kinu t/c 01:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mukul Sinha. Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Sangharsh Manch

Jan Sangharsh Manch (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 fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG Divesome (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 12:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. While there was an argument that he was referenced elsewhere on Wikipedia, there was no rebuttal to the arguments that the article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOLAR. Aoidh (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Alan Fritzsche

Ronald Alan Fritzsche (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)

Sourced mostly by primary sources, there is not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and with a high citation count of 2, and not qualifying positions, does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 10:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Ronald Alan Fritzsche is referenced in many places in Wikipedia. See surname Fritzsche, Silver Antelope, Silver Beaver, multiple fish species listings, etc. It seemed appropriate to add Ronald Alan Fritzsche.
2. This article is no different than others such as Robert A Gearhart, Bruce Collette, etc.
3. Additional references can certainly be added. Ron Drfish (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What THREE best INDEPENDENT sources could you provide that show he's notable? BhamBoi (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://fishbase.mnhn.fr/collaborators/CollaboratorSummary.php?id=157
https://wf-wiki.de/index.php?title=Ronald_A._Fritzsche
https://zoobank.org/References/dc225104-3782-438c-b478-f46fffbb4d06
https://www.gulfbase.org/people/dr-ron-fritzsche 2001:5B0:2538:F6E8:F022:8A91:FAF1:BD91 (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He is one of over 50 contributors to "A checklist of the fishes of the South China Sea", so its citation count certainly does not contribute to WP:PROF#C1, and with only double-digit citations for the rest (albeit in a low-citation field), I don't see enough of a case there. Fellow or head of a major academic society could also potentially pass other PROF criteria, but I am skeptical of the notability and significance of Gilbert Ichthyological Society and the other one doesn't even have its own article. This article's massive WP:AUTOBIO problems (the article's creator and main contributor has admitted on userpage to being its subject) make me unwilling to give any slack. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no listing of the invited contribution to “A checklist of the fishes of the South China Sea” in the Selected Publications section. Additionally, ResearchGate lists 472 citations. Ron Drfish (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please see his Wikispecies Article, which could be relevant. BhamBoi (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per David Eppstein: notability is unclear, and the issue is compounded by self-authorship. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Kumar (chemist)

Dinesh Kumar (chemist) (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)

Reasonable h-index of 33, but in a field with a large number of papers. The claim to be in the top 2% of scientists doesn't stack up. Dean of a faculty only, not the university, so I don't think WP:NACADEMIC is met. This has already been draftified once, so I couldn't do so again. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim to be in the top 2% scientist is right according to me because of this reference PDF uploaded by 'Elsevier Data Repository' i.e., Table_1_Authors_singleyr_2021_pubs_since_1788_wopp_extracted_202209.xlsx Abhaybeniwalreengus (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this file, he appears on row #177221. His rank in column G is given as 260,797 and in column V as 208,179. How does this equate to being in the top 2% of scientists? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this and their (Abhaybeniwalreengus) comment's below as article creator, it does seem like they are writing articles with undue promotion towards subjects that would warrant further scrutiny of their articles.
I do have to say that the page creator claiming the article should be kept in part because they made wikilinks to something like July 15 comes across as very strange. KoA (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Chemistry field do not have more popularity or do not have more citations, his h index is 33 and [https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=qTdwA8IAAAAJ&hl=en he has 6 papers with 100+ citation and also have one Book published by British Publisher. Which is generally enough to pass WP:NPROF according to me it should be kept on Wikipedia. Thanks user:Dippswrite‬ (talk) 21 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dippswrite (talk • contribs) — Dippswrite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Reasonable number of moderately-highly cited papers to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Jeppiz (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Eeks past the bar for NPROF in terms of citations (albeit one of the more subjective criteria). I'm not seeing much for quality secondary sources that would really establish notability though, so even with the citation metrics, it still would be possible that this could end up in the delete pile someday. This one is pretty borderline since it's usually a red flag if there isn't much to write about in the article itself through secondary sources. KoA (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Forward Party (United States) as an WP:ATD Salvio giuliano 11:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Party of Utah

Forward Party of Utah (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)

Deproded. Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. Sources in article are not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE did not show any SIGCOV. No elected officials. Could be TOOSOON but atm not ready.  // Timothy :: talk  08:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Considering that the party doesn't even have ballot access in Utah, and the only two races it was involved with were cross-party endorsements, it doesn't need its own page. OutlawRun (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deletion: Several other Utah parties that have had much less influence maintain Wikipedia pages. The Forward Party of Utah is the group's largest statewide affiliate. Further, Evan McMullin's organization RAM merged into Forward, which adds to its importance considering McMullin's importance within Utah. PeacockShah (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2023 (MDT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (G11) (non-admin closure) — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Systel

Systel (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)

Company fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.

At time of AfD creation, Sources 1 and 2 are trivial coverage/press releases; source 3 is a YouTube video with <100 views of someone's acceptance speech of an award given to the company; source 4 is paywalled for me but if the company is mentioned, it's a trivial mention; sources 5 and 6 do not mention the company by name at all.

I cannot find any additional sources online that would cause the company to meet the notability criteria. Looking at the article's history, I also strongly suspect UPE w.r.t. its creation and many of its subsequent edits. Uhai (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 11:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunt (video game series)

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

Not a series by WP:VG's consensus: Manhunt consists of two games, without any substantial information about a possible sequel. No other media (books, films, etc.) or merchandise. It just repeats the information from Manhunt (video game) and Manhunt 2. Not worth redirecting, because by all accounts, there shouldn't be any mention of a "series". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gao Jian (diplomat)

Gao Jian (diplomat) (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 automatic assumption of notability for diplomats and I don't see any RS that meet the GNG JMWt (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Could not find indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the results I see are single-sentence profiles and trivial mentions. Mucube (talk • contribs) 22:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 12:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PC Tech Magazine

AfDs for this article:
PC Tech Magazine (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)

Magazine doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you believe show that WP:GNG is met? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources?  // Timothy :: talk  08:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails N, nothing with SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources found are promo, nothing IS RS.
Source eval table:
Comments Reference
Interview, Fails IS RS 1. "PC Tech Magazine interviewed TRAC FM founder and director Wouter Dijkstra". Trac FM. 30 September 2020. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
Media partner, Fails IS RS 2. ^ "PC Tech Magazine Media Partner". Innovation Africa. 30 April 2022. Retrieved 24 June 2022.
List, no SIGCOV, promo 3. ^ "List of the top 5 technology websites in Uganda". UG Tech Magazine.
List, no SIGCOV, promo 4. ^ "Tech blogs and News Sites in Uganda". Investment Guide Africa.
List, no SIGCOV, promo 5. ^ "Top 8 Most Influential Tech Blogs (Websites) In Uganda". ICT GUY. 8 December 2022.
Promo bio, no SIGCOV about subject 6. ^ "Albert Mucunguzi". Stockholm Internet Forum.
Interview, Fails IS RS 7. ^ "Uganda's tech industry needs less of the same, says expert". How we made it in Africa. 15 August 2012.
Promo for an event, no IS RS SIGCOV 8. ^ "PC Tech Magazine". WSA.
Promo, fails IS RS 9. ^ "Domestic technology magazines hit Uganda shelves". Biz Community. 24 March 2010.
Database entry, not IS RS SIGCOV 10. ^ "PC Tech Magazine". A2T.
Wikipedia 11. ^ "List of Young Achievers Award winners". Wikipedia.
Award for journalist, not IS RS with SIGCOV about subject 12. ^ "PC Tech Journalist, Nathan Olupot Wins 2021 E-Government ICT Award". Tech Point Magazine. 11 February 2018.

 // Timothy :: talk  09:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Blackmore

Penelope Blackmore (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:NGYMNAST, WP:NOLY and WP:BIO. All the sources listed are primary. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to J. K. Organisation. Star Mississippi 15:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JK Technosoft

JK Technosoft (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)

look like an advertisement Endrabcwizart (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Previously declined at AfC under the name Draft:JK Tech. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect: An article on an IT Services company under the J. K. Organisation. The references provided are predominantly announcement-based or about the parent group, along with several industry awards for this company which do not appear intrinsically notable. I agree with the earlier AfC reviewer that notability is not demonstrated. This company is mentioned in the article on the parent group, so a redirect to there could serve as a WP:ATD. AllyD (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to List of victims of the September 11 attacks (A–G). Salvio giuliano 15:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edna Cintron

Edna Cintron (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)

Tragic, but not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Was deprodded without valid rationale or improvement. Onel5969 TT me 22:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not meeting GNG. The sources used are about other things that "name drop" her. She wasn't notable before passing away; being a victim is sad, but nothing notable for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found coverage of her last moments in ProQuest and added it in. Coverage of her also was occurring 5 years later and in 2016 (e.g. Daly, M. (2016). 15 years of donald trump's 9/11 lies, insults, and slights: The new yorker has a huge history of indifference and contempt for the darkest day in his city's history.) Article meets WP:GNG CT55555(talk) 23:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CT55555. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As CT55555 pointed out, she has received enough coverage for this history to be notable. // MitYehor (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely, the page needs work, and should be improved, but as other users have pointed out, she clearly is notable enough to have a page. As such, I fundamentally disagree with the reasoning of Oaktree b and the OP.Historyday01 (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be very helpful if proposed references could be actually linked to and discussed, rather than handwaved toward.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to any 9/11 related article per WP:BLP1E. All of the 3 criteria discussed in the guideline are met. First, Cintron is only discussed in terms of one event (9/11). Secondly, the person was a low-profile individual. She was not notable outside the attack. Thirdly, Cintron did not play a key role in the event nor was extensively covered. The proposed references barely mention Cintron, with best one being [64]. There should multiple sources like this to warrant a seperate article.
The L in BLP stands for "living". It doesn't apply here. CT55555(talk) 13:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's why there's WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 TT me 16:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then Redirect to List of victims of the September 11 attacks (A–G) - available sources do not appear sufficiently reliable or in-depth to support or expand this article per WP:BASIC, and WP:BIO1E appears to apply. For example, the 2013 Omega: Journal of Death & Dying article at p. 350 includes her as one of many "falling civilians", as follows: "“The Waving Woman of 9/11” captures video footage of Edna Cintron (a confirmed decedent from WTC 1, who popular culture websites claim is the woman waving); she waves for attention as she stands in the gaping hole made by the plane (Webfairy.org, 2012)"; in 9/11 TWENTY YEARS LATER. By: MUIR, DAVID, SAWYER, DIANE, ROBERTS, ROBIN, News Special Report (ABC), 9/11/2021, she is listed, along with many others; similarly in Victims of September 11, 2001, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62, Special Issue: Democratic Governance in the Aftermath of September 11, 2001 (Sep., 2002), pp. 6-15 (JSTOR); it appears the Sunday Times covers her as one of many subject to a "bizarre conspiracy theory" (Smith, David James. Sunday Times; London (UK) [London (UK)]. 04 Sep 2011: 40) but I cannot access the article via ProQuest; and there are two WP:DAILYBEAST articles, one on ProQuest 1830183344 titled "15 Years of Donald Trump's 9/11 Lies, Insults, and Slights: The New Yorker has a huge history of indifference and contempt for the darkest day in his city's history" Daly, Michael. The Daily Beast, New York: The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC. Sep 9, 2016. "...Trump had spoken of standing at his apartment window and possessing such remarkable eyesight that he could see the jumpers four miles south. The woman in the photo--identified as Edna Cintron, an administrative assistant who had been working there to augment the income of her family flower shop in Harlem--is believed to have become one of those forced by the flames to leap. To look at that photo of her in her final moments at the abyss is to know that telling lies about her or about those who perished with her are far more heinous lies than such a standard politician's fib..." and 18 Years of Donald Trump’s 9/11 Lies, Insults, and Slights (Daly, Daily Beast, updated 2019, the same text). The current article uses "alleged" in the lead about her identity as 'the waving woman' but a more certain tone in WP:WIKIVOICE in the main article, sourced to reddit and this book, which claims, inter alia, "The evidence proves that powerful Zionists ordered the 9/11 attacks". The NYT obit and the Independent obit can be added as references for her name at the redirect target. Beccaynr (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: "Delete then redirect" is suggested by one editor above... huh? Why? Redirecting would preserve the substantial information in the article, and even if it stays as a redirect and is never expanded, that could facilitate future editing at the redirect target. I dunno, is the call in order to be mean and/or emphatic somehow, that one really really hates the information or something? One really wants to stamp it out, so that the next person arriving to create an article on the topic is at a further disadvantage?
I am not sure whether the article, which is poignant, should be kept or not, but I OPPOSE "delete then redirect" in the name of honesty and decency and respect for past, current, and future editors. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 08:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had hoped the source analysis helped explain why preserving the independent and reliable sources (i.e. the NYT and Independent obits as links at the redirect target) and deleting this article seems best for the encyclopedia. Our WP:SALT policy does not appear to apply unless the article is repeatedly recreated, but if another editor tries to assert WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims based on allegations made by 'popular culture websites', "a website hosted by a “9/11 Conspiracy” theorist", reddit, 'bizarre conspiracy theories', a mention in the WP:DAILYBEAST used for commentary about Trump, and a book promoting anti-semitic conspiracy theory, that can be addressed in the future. The poor-quality sourcing reviewed above does not appear to support her WP:BASIC notability - it is at best sensationalism, which our policies recognize that even generally reliable sources are not immune from promoting, and we are encouraged to do better, including when we are talking about fringe theories. From my view, this appears to be a straightforward WP:BIO1E, but given the poorly-sourced allegations and conspiracies added and suggested as support for keeping this article, the damage in the edit history appears to be beyond fixing, so deletion before a redirect seems appropriate for protecting the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Salvio giuliano 16:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

О with left notch

О with left notch (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)
Possible hoax article? Unreferenced, does not seem to be in Unicode, Google seatch fails to find anything except material sourced from thid article. It has been added to {{Infobox Cyrillic letter}}, but is not found in List of Cyrillic letters. No corresponding article in any other language.

The facts that the creating editor's username is User:Cyrilliclols and that they have also previously created a rejected draft article for a fictional alphabet, may also be relevant.

Having said which, the glyph does occur on other wikis in edits dating back well before the creation of this article, and the image was created a long time ago, so this might be a good faith creation; but if so, it would still need a valid supporting cite to be kept.— The Anome (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is. I have listed a source below. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems like it deserves a spot somewhere if there is a suitable editor who is knowledgeable enough about Cyrillic to find the sources. But to my untrained eye, it looks like this is a marginal letter with little use. Maybe there could be a note or section somewhere about marginal/proposed letters? Not sure which would be the best place to merge, but agree it doesn't seem to have the notability/content for a page. JMWt (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Comment there is an article on the Bashkir alphabet. I don't know enough to comment on either it or this AFD, but when I looked at it I saw a big table of multiple writing systems. Elinruby (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Haworth (Footballer)

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

The article states "Nothing is known about Peter Haworth except he deputised for John Lindsay, the regular Accrington goalkeeper and kept a clean-sheet in a 0–0 draw played at Thorneyholme Road against West Bromwich Albion on 8 February 1890." This seems to be an admission that the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Spicy (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Spicy (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As the article itself acknowledges, after one match he "disappeared into the obscurity from whence he came." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This player played for a top-flight club. However, as that club went bankrupt 130 years ago there are no books on players from Accrington F.C. The only sources for the reserve players who covered an injury etc., are ENFA on-line and on-line newspaper articles through The British Newspaper Library. The only book is Michaal Joyce whose book covers every Football League player from 1888 - 1939. I can add Joyce as a reference if that would save the article. I have proved Peter Haworth played one top-flight football match through the two sources I mentioned. My final point is consistency. There are many articles of other one match top-flight players that have not been deleted even when Joyce was the only source. Ultimately, it is up to Wikipedia. If you want articles on every player who played top-flight football in England then you need to consider a more flexible stance on the number of sources on players of the pre World War 1 era. If not, then I respect your decision but would repeat my point of inconsistency and that it would be a shame that a players 90 minutes of fame or infamy is not recorded for posterity and Wikipedia is the ONLY way of doing that. I leave the decision in your capable hands. BHKendler161148 (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a database of every top-tier footballer ever, english or otherwise and articles of other players with the same lack of coverage as Haworth should also be deleted. A redirect to Accrington F.C. is also fine in my opinion. Alvaldi (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't even think it merits a redirect to the club article. GiantSnowman 19:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - another casualty of the deprecation of NFOOTY. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 17:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Edmond Brossard

Jacques Edmond Brossard (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 significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. The only coverage I could find is for a different Jacques Brossard living in France. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Martin (journalist)

Terry Martin (journalist) (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 notability. None of the sources are independent, with two being Martin's personal website, one being an interview with DW, which is non-independent as Martin is a journalist there, whereas there was previously a non-independent ref in the article that was removed by an IP (which was copied and pasted into this article, I've removed the copyvio and requested revdel), which is another profile about Martin being a speaker at a forum. Likewise, my WP:BEFORE found non-independent refs such as 1, 2 but there is insufficient non-trivial independent reliable sources to support WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, or WP:NBIO being passed. VickKiang (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The notability of a journalist is not established by his own self-published website about himself, or by a staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer — it requires third party verification of his significance in sources that don't sign his paycheque, such as notable journalism awards and/or analytical coverage about his work in other media outlets besides the one he works for. Bearcat (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 14:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. I also tried to find any sources on the person at ProQuest and was unsuccessful. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh Hai Raaz

Yeh Hai Raaz (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)

Pay-TV show doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - sources lack in-depth coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 02:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Wardriving. Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warflying

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

Not individually notable. Moved most important info to Wardriving. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual dance

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

This is not an actual article on the subject of virtual dance (which might well exist), nor even a proper encyclopedia article on the subject of Dance in Second Life, but instead an ancient forgotten essay/how-to guide from 2010 with no useful sources (all of the references are individual dance shows) that belongs on a Second Life fan wiki, not Wikipedia. In the unlikely event someone wants to write an article on this topic a WP:TNT seems warranted. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Essay or some sort of OR. I'm not even sure how we'd source this, for Second Life? It needs a TNT at the very least, but I'd just get rid of it. Some strange hybrid of Second Life and an essay on how to program dancing avatars. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How has this essay survived so long? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be 'unlikely' to write or read about this topics on Wikipedia? That seems just an uninformed assumption because there are more than one place where this is a 'hot' item. 2 3 4 That's not to say that I very much liked the format and contents of the lemma as it is or was, but with some others I did my best to give it a broader base to stand on. To at least mention and show a few examples of it, to mention different approaches. Of course it can be (re-)written and enhanced, in many other ways, or a with a renewed title it could include the notion 'in Second Life' to start with...
*Merge and reworke it (probably truncated to a stub, or as a kind of 'gallery page'). IMO A. critisizing the content and format of a lemma and B. marginalizing the topic are two different things. It should be more clearly differentiated why the complete topic or just (parts of the content) need to be removed. I think contributions from members of minority groups like world of art should be welcome and FEEL TO BE WELCOME on wiki. I think that this is of vital importance for the project. Pelikana (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's no obvious choice to me why to want to delete this more open and general lemma on one hand and why to keep the single topic lemma with an ongoing history of blatant SP on the other hand. Nominator will know which one I mean. I think they could be merged and that it is undesirable that every new and coming dance troupe in SL has hers own lemma. Pelikana (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator will know which one I mean. Sorry, what? I clearly don't, nor do I understand the acronym SP, or what you are contrasting this article to (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS).
The rest of this comment fares no better; the sources you provided could be used by someone else to write a proper article (some of them do seem notability-building from a quick glance), but that article would bear no resemblance to the essay currently occupying this title so I maintain a WP:TNT at best is warranted.
I think contributions from members of minority groups like world of art should be welcome and FEEL TO BE WELCOME on wiki - this has nothing to do with being welcoming, it's about upholding consistent standards rather than letting articles fall through the cracks. And that's why I think it's unlikely anyone cares - this article received no attention whatsoever in the 2-year period from January 2021 to when I filed this AfD, which is much stronger evidence of unimportance than your speculation. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I reworked this lemma. I hope someone can notice and appreciate the changes. thanks. I think my care is evidence enough about the fact that at least one wikipedian cares about the topic. It might be a right speculation that nobody would be eager after deletion and having to start a lemma already prefilled with a text saying : this lemma was deleted before. The text was: delete asap. Pelikana (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now it doesn't meet GNG as there are no RS discussing it, it's basically fan sites. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this article received no attention whatsoever in the 2-year period from January 2021 He writes only half the truth, as usual. Evidence:pageviews Virtual_dance The page has had visitors. ktxbye.Pelikana (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Median of one, daily average of 3, doesn't really help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The original sentence that started this speculation war was In the unlikely event someone wants to write an article on this topic [...] - it was refering to interest from Wikipedians, not interest from readers. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if someone had taken the talk route, it could have become a constructive coöperation instead of a war like needless disturbance on commons while user was available for a dialog. Pelikana (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as their still seems to be a discussion about this possible deletion. This isn't about the nominator or this nomination but whether notability can be established for this subject according to Wikipedia's standards. That's really all that matters in all deletion discussions.

But what the heck is a "lemma"? Please do not use jargon in discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Nomader (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found some small commentary about it. A small article from VentureBeat about virtual dance club in a VR space ([70]), and a couple passing mentions of some clubs in a virtual space ([71], [72]). It's just not really there right now. I could see an article that talks about "emotes" in video games and their rise as being a really interesting subject (in a way that our Emote article doesn't really cover as a subject), but this article here definitely isn't it, and "virtual dance" seems limited to Second Life discussion circa 2005 in passing mentions. It's clear this doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nomader (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The idea of "virtual dance" as a modern art form is an unquestionably notable topic (ask, and I can provide sources). However, that is not really what this article is about. It is about dancing in Second Life and undoubtedly needs a WP:TNT. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is now a small group of sources on my talk page for a future article after being requested! Why? I Ask (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOR. The subject is probably notable, but would require a full WP:TNT and rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nomination and WP:TNT. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per WP:TNTTNT - not brilliant yet at all, and/but it can't be improved within a week while it seems to be in be in a trash bin already. Even though I can understand the strong urge to hide it's tragic history, it would be a falsification of both SL and WP history to pretend the article (aka lexeme, ~lemma) was created any time later than 2010. I still propose a title change to something like "Virtual dance in Second Life" or just "Dance in Second Life", but this can't be done during this discussion. Challenged material can still be sourced, irrelevant detail and obvious nonsense can be removed. There seems to be an abundance of visual material on sites like flickr, youtube and vimeo plus lots of fanpages on sites like FB that sufficiently cover it's existence and it's relevance to visitors of virtual worlds. But avatar-dancers and photographers are not necessarily skilled writers and writers-art historians are not necessarily interested to engage themselves as a wikipedian or may have other WP priorities. Peli_ (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are are only allowed one bolded "!vote". This is your second. Please amend this. Sergecross73 msg me 11:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pelikana: The issue is that there isn't enough sources for this to be a notable enough topic in Wikipedia. It's frustrating and true what you say about a lack of coverage of internet and digital art in some cases (I've been part of a deletion discussion recently that talked about just that), but we have inclusion standards that we rigorously uphold to (that weren't really as well enforced back in 2010) and this specific topic here misses the mark.
    I'd recommend that if you want to preserve the memory of this page, taking it to one of the Second Life-specific wikis would be more appropriate, as adding it to the Second Life page here would be undue. (Fandom: [73], the official Second Life wiki: [74]) Nomader (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Nomader: the problem with this page, which started as pure Self Promotion (SP) by a new single-topic Wikipedian, is that the phenomenon of dancing in virtual worlds is as common as a 'dinner plate' or a 'wooden table' in the real world. Everyone, every avatar, knows it, everyone (millions of people) used it within hours after entering their virtual world, but nobody writes a lenghty study about it. Afterall it is just an adjective and a noun, that does not have any deeper meaning without detailing the context. Without the third coördinate (f.e. the technical context of the specific virtual world) it stays very flat. I would not want to start long articles about each of the possible combinations like 'Virtual Architecture', 'Virtual breeding', 'Virtual sailing' etc. These could better be just small paragraphs in their parent articles like the Virtual World by name, where they can be easily referenced with just a few very good references. - Dancing with VR headsets did not exist in 2010 in notable ways. Now it is seen in almost every promoclip about VR events. So there need to be some more differentiation. The relay race stick needs to be picked up by more than one author soon. I'm passing on this one soon, even though it would be not to hard to properly source a limited article on this topic of like one, two or three pargaraphs.
Thanks for the references to even more poorly maintenanced niche wiki's but the history of this article 'Virtual dance' is already preserved on Wayback machine. BTW I dont know all the implications of abbreviations like 'TNT at best is warranted'. Does this mean: improvement of the article under this same Head word can start right now with clearing the page? Or does it mean 'one can start a fresh page (possibly under a better name' like 'digital dance' or similar), which looks very generous, but also too obvious to even state it, since thats daily (warranted) business here. I was not sure why it would have to be started by 'another user' could be used by someone else to write a proper article. Is this the case? Is this in the wiki guidelines to kick out previous editors of deleted articles and give them a kind of topic ban? Another question is: Should I stop publishing media about virtual dance (Dance in Second Life) on commons??? Since there will be no more background info on it here. And on another sidenote: on wp:nl we are not that maniacal about sourcing (and making the text in the edit window unreadable). And on another sidenote: The feel-welcome remark was a (displaced) hearts cry on the behavior of user M S structurally entering commons to police and delete any German language image with two or three pixels of protected art, even if the context clearly shows they are provided by the family of the artist, even if everybody else would try to waive these as 'de minimis', or start a dialog. Even if they have been in use as the single available portrait of the artist on commons and in the article for years. Examples of this pseudo professional surveillance and creator 'griefing' mixed in with some spotting of some undoubted Copyvio can be mentioned provided another time. I thought it was important to try not to bite these newbees everytime you get a chance to do so (these single topic 'experts' writing and contributing media about their ancestors, their churches, or the toilets and hallways of their museums). Sorry for expressing those displaced concerns here. Best regards. Peli (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pelikana: I'll address your points here. I don't think your concerns are misplaced! But I think it's important to understand why this is happening:
  • The photos are generally fine to continue to be uploaded to Commons because of the copyright rules being really permissive for the game. Even if a picture isn't used on Wikipedia, Commons can still host it. I imagine that if someone made a copyrighted work out of it, they'd delete the photo pretty quickly -- but outside of that you should be good to go. Commons is insanely militant about copyright pieces, so if there's anything protected in it, it will be deleted incredibly quickly.
  • "TNT" means "blow it up and start over." The current article is about a specifically non-notable topic, but as you've mentioned, virtual dance is definitely a notable topic on its own, but this article contains almost nothing that would be currently useful for it. It's so niche and not-notable, that we're arguing that it would be better if this was all gotten rid of and then rebuilt from the ground up using the sources that Why? I Ask proposed. I think that dance in Second Life could theoretically be a sentence or two in a new article, but for the entire article to be about it feels completely undue in focus.
  • There's no topic bans if an article is deleted, but if the article were to be repeatedly be re-created in a similar way, I imagine it could run afoul of issues that arise from ignoring community consensus.
Nomader (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is determined based on the strength of the arguments put forth. In this case, the delete !voters have articulated in detail why they feel that WP:GNG is not met, in the absence of WP:SIGCOV, examining the sources that are available. On the other hand, the keep !voters have not sufficiently explained how and which sources are enough to ensure notability, while the sources that they have specifically mentioned in their !votes have been examined and rejected by the delete !voters. Salvio giuliano 12:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Bertrand

Kira Bertrand (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources such as [75] and [76] are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Canada, Caribbean, and Oklahoma. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a good number of sources. Sure, some may be be trivial/routine, but there are some decent ones like 1, 2, and 3. While I agree that there are way too many permastubs on wikipedia, I would say when there is a large quantity of sourcing regarding a player to write a decent article covering many different events, it adds up to being acceptable enough for an article. This player is the 'sourced' captain of the national team as well, which is notable as well. While everyone on a team may not be notable, a lead figure such as a captain usually is. RedPatch (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source is routine coverage and the last two are no where near SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the sources on page look significant enough, especially one highlighting her captaining the national team. Enough to make a comprehensive page.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Not enough in-depth sources. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per RedPatch and Ortizesp. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as other users have pointed out. The sources seem strong enough to support the page remaining. Surely, the page should be improved, but AfDs are no substitution for article cleanup.Historyday01 (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. None of the sources presented show SIGCOV. The first [77] is a trivial story, [78] is a primary source from her college and [79] is a trivial mention. Alvaldi (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreed with Alvaldi. The first source is also very clearly not RS or independent (it's a submission from "EmoNews contributor" credited to DFA Media). JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article was here for a year and there were no issues until a poorly thought out rule change, that I ultimately believe will be temporary. Mass articles being deleted due to hot button issues are not what this site should be about. The sourcing looks fine to me.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; while CONCACAF and League1 Ontario have issued some blurbs about her career (and she made an all-star roster), those are not independent coverage, nor are the many press releases about her signing or being added to her university's coaching staff. I simply can't find anything that isn't trivial or routine in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The refs in the article do not add up to enough significant, in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 20:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would help if those advocating Keep were more specific about how and which sources establish GNG for this article subject instead of just saying sources exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I already voted, but given she scored the first ever competitive goal for Dominica in women's international competition (as sourced in article), I also think that gives her a fairly notable status in the country's sporting history. I added it to the lead paragraph. RedPatch (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? That doesn't qualify for WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't say "So what?" It's dismissive of other editors. And this event could be SIGCOV if some media source decides to cover it some day. Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regardless, it's totally irrelevant to determining notability now. The only possibly independent source anyone has even identified contains part of one sentence directly on her, in a 5-sentence routine announcement in local news. That is plainly insufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was with the under-20 team, as she hasn't yet scored for the senior team, and it drew essentially zero attention in independent, reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability There's various information cited from secondary sources such as [A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H. The fact that a sizeable article is able to be written is evidence of that given multiple independent sources were combined to create such an article. RedPatch (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...Facebook and blogspot posts? Really? 1 is the trivial namedrop source from before Red XN, 2 is an even more trivial mention Red XN, 3 is the obvious press release from the Dominica Football Association from before Red XN, 4 is a facebook post Red XN, 5 is a blog post Red XN, 6 is a press release from a non-independent org Red XN, 7 is a school newspaper article Red XN, and 8 is one sentence plus a quote Red XN. BASIC is not met with trivial, unreliable, and non-independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The third source brought up by RedPatch has enough non-trivial content regarding Bertrand that I consider it to be significant, but that alone is not enough to pass GNG. The rest are all either non-independent or insignificant/trivial. Frank Anchor 14:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per RedPatch and Ortizesp. Shotgun pete (talk) 4:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete It's hard to find adequate sources when potential ones are mixed together with facebook posts, blogs and non-independent press releases, but, when this refbomb receives the attention it doesn't deserve, it becomes apparent that independent and significant coverage is not available anyway. Avilich (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These sources are not significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 02:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sources are primary, interview quotes, promos, stats, social media, lots of articles about a party and a little ROUTINE news. Nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Nowhere near what a BLP needs. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.  // Timothy :: talk  23:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 15:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Cayer

Natasha Cayer (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:BIO, no significant coverage. Only sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with nominators reasoning. Nocturnal781 (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator's extreme enthusiasm for deleting articles on Canadian ambassadors is not constructive. NB, Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Competence notes that This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources... The escalating campaign is not taking us towards better coverage of diplomacy or anything else. Moonraker (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of them are getting deleted for lack of sourcing anyway, I don't think it matters that much, we're cleaning the cobwebs out of wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zero attempt to address notability concerns, and a recycling of !vote that doesn't address notability at all in a space of a few minutes from [80], [81].
    LibStar (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep due my assessment that the subject borderline meets WP:BASIC and the existence of this article being a net positive (i.e. a bit of WP:IAR). Sometimes we lean delete if we sense the article is promotional, but this one is not, and most of it I added before making this !vote CT55555(talk) 20:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find non-independent sources (UN and CA gov't documents) which are routine and not extensive. I can find copies of talks that she gave, and one article by her. That's all. Lamona (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough.--Jetam2 (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSNOTABLE LibStar (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 2 of the 3 keep !votes are not based on policy. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:NPOL.Onel5969 TT me 20:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond listings in various gov't documents and listings of postings, I don't see any extensive discussion about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Most of the discussion here has been about the content, formatting and naming of this article, not arguments over whether or not it should exist. So, I'm closing this as Keep and encouraging interested editors to discuss points of disagreement on the article talk page or other dispute resolution forums. Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian civil conflict (2018–present)

Ethiopian civil conflict (2018–present) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a article of unrelated conflicts in Ethiopia from 2018 to now presented as a single conflict. It even mentions the 2022 al-Shabaab invasion of Ethiopia and lists al-Shabaab as a belligerent despite no sources of al Shabaab having any link with other ethnic conflicts in Ethiopia, they are separate and unrelated conflicts. Same goes for the Oromia–Somali clashes, the Afar–Somali clashes, the Amhara Region coup d'état attempt and many more. The article does not even try to explain the relation between all these conflicts and just list and briefly explains them. While it is true that many liberation fronts did work and fight together, especially in the Tigray War. Only in this Wikipedia article is every single conflict in one country treated as a single "conflict". Imagine someone did this for every single country on Wikipedia. This is like combining all conflicts in Nigeria such as the Conflict in the Niger Delta, Herder–farmer conflicts in Nigeria and the Boko Haram insurgency into one "Nigerian Civil conflict" regardless if theyre related or not. This is exactly what this article is trying to do. WP:SYNTH as none of the sources cited suggests that all of these conflicts are related or linked. محرر البوق (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 20. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 01:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Ethiopia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If the issue is lack of reliable sources for the al-Shabaab invasion, then adding a Tag is more appropriate than nominating it for deletion. Ethnic violence in Ethiopia since the 2018 regime change is a very series and an ongoing issue. The article covered most of the conflicts happening in various regions. From the dynamic nature of the issue, sections may need updating but as far as one can see, the Outline itself adequately shows the various ethnic conflicts discussed. Could you please state which ethnic conflict is not covered? Petra0922 (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ethnic violence in Ethiopia has been ongoing for a very long time, way before 2018 (many of the wars listed predate 2018), and it will undoubtedly continue into the future. The problem is the article is attempting to group up these many different ethnic insurgencies into one single war, despite no adequate sources. What is the connection between the Afar–Somali clashes, the 2020–2022 Ethiopian–Sudanese clashes and the Oromo conflict? Nothing. They are completely different wars/insurgencies that have no connections with each other, but according to this article, they are the same conflict. محرر البوق (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are not all a single organised conflict, but they cannot be completely separated from the wider Ethiopian sociopolitical context, nor completely from each other. To take the current state of those three articles:
    • Afar–Somali clashes: In 2014, the federal government, headed by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), redrew the boundary between the two regions. As a result ... – this is a consequence of EPRDF/TPLF ethnic federalism;
    • 2020–2022 Ethiopian–Sudanese clashes: With the outbreak of the Tigray War, Sudanese forces were able to move into the region due to an agreement with Ethiopia just three days before. When Amhara militants left to assist the federal government in the war, Sudanese forces started to ... – related to the Tigray War;
    • Oromo conflict – see TDF–OLA joint offensive: The TDF–OLA joint offensive was a series of military battles starting in late October 2021 opposing a coalition of the Tigray Defense Forces (TDF) and Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) against the Ethiopian National Defense Forces (ENDF) ... The TDF and OLA confirmed a military alliance against the federal forces. The military actions of the TDF-OLA coalition were seen by the federal authorities as a threat to Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia. – related to the Tigray War;
    Boud (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems the examples Boud provided elaborated this point. Petra0922 (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The scope of this article is to give an overview of the various armed conflicts in Ethiopia from 2018 to the present. Abiy Ahmed became prime minister in 2018, making 2018 a natural and uncontroversial historical breaking point in Ethiopian history: Al Jazeera 2019, There is growing concern that Ethiopia's prime minister has failed to address rising ethnic tensions and violence, describes ethnic armed conflicts in Ethiopia as a single topic related to the Abiy epoch. The Ethiopia-wide debate about ethnic federalism and armed conflict for or against perceived or real centralisation or decentralisation are covered by many sources for pre-2018 and 2018+, e.g. Journal of Contemporary African Studies 2007; Canadian Journal of African Studies 2016; Wilson Center 2021; Insight on Africa 2022.
    Some synthesis has crept into the article, such as the choice of section titles with 'pre-war' and 'Course of the war', which I have renamed just now to reduce the risk of WP:SYNTHESIS. Both the lead and the Background section would benefit from some major rewriting and good sourcing to avoid the risk of reach[ing] or imply[ing] a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. There is also a need to have more content from sources that place the various armed conflicts in their constitutional/political context, while leaving detailed content of the individual conflicts in the individual articles.
    A possible option could be to propose reverting the title change back to Ethiopian civil conflict under Abiy Ahmed's administration to clarify that there's no claim of "a single war", but I wouldn't expect that to gain support. Boud (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think that this article should be structured similarly to Opposition to Haile Selassie? I believe that removing the infobox will significantly improve this page as there's too many belligerents and makes things much more messy. محرر البوق (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boud محرر البوق (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @محرر البوق: I think a structure similar to Opposition to Haile Selassie would be fine, but matched to the actual events during the Abiy epoch. Something more or less chronological, but also geographical/political, showing how Abiy/his government either influenced, was influenced by, or ignored the various armed conflicts. The title could probably be thrown open for debate in a new section on the talk page: e.g. Ethiopian civil conflicts (2018–present) (adding the 's' for plural); or an equivalent to Ethiopian civil conflict under Abiy Ahmed's administration to avoid the figurative sense of "under", e.g. civil conflicts during the Abiy Ahmed administration or civil conflicts during the Abiy Ahmed government (no need for 'Ethiopian': there's only one Abiy Ahmed government/administration in world history, as far as I know). I don't think Opposition to ... would work, because not all of the armed conflicts are directly against the federal government.
    I tend to think that being WP:BOLD and removing the infobox would be reasonable, since the infobox does give the impression that there's a single conflict – currently it shows "four sides" (with al-Qaeda/al-Shabaab as "one side"), and says that "the conflict" started all of a sudden exactly two days after Abiy became prime minister. Both of these "statements" in the infobox are, to put it bluntly, ridiculous, or more diplomatically, highly misleading. However, it would be good after removing the infobox to open a talk page section for people who disagree or don't understand the reasoning: the issues of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are both relevant to other Ethiopia-related articles, and newish editors may not understand why earlier editors developed these guidelines - or may disagree with them. Boud (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boud: Alright I will remove the infobox soon and add more information later this week. I also would support a title change aswell. Personally, a removal of the "(2018–present)" would seem sufficient to me. But I would 100% support a full title change to "civil conflicts during the Abiy Ahmed administration" too. I think the best title would be "Ethnic violence during the Abiy Ahmed administration" so information about ethnic massacres and such could be added as well. But either one is fine to me. محرر البوق (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @محرر البوق:, @Boud, The characteristics of the Haile Selassie and Abiy Ahmed′s rulings are completely different. Too many conflicting parties are involved since 2018, as listed in the Infobox. Isn't the point of the article to capture the nature of the various conflicts and participants? As for the title, if it needs to change to Ethiopian civil conflict under Abiy Ahmed's administration then, I would suggest adding his formal last name, Ali to the title. Petra0922 (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Petra0922 @Boud I'm obviously not comparing Haile Selassie's regime to Abiy Ahmed's, but the Opposition to Haile Selassie article is also talking about a collection of conflicts (more or less related) that occurred under his administration, and that article does not have an infobox as whoever edited that page realized that an infobox wouldn't effectively serve it's purpose. Look at this MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE - "The purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content."
    Snice the purpose of an military infobox is to briefly summarize the key facts of an article and that this article quite complex due to the fact that it's talking about several conflicts rather then one. It's clear that an infobox wouldn't serve it's purpose here and possibly mislead the viewer (we have already established that some of the information in the infobox is not accurate).
    محرر البوق (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @محرر البوق:, I noticed you removed the infobox before achieving consensus (WP:CONACHIEVE) and the title doesn't consist of a formal or common name. If the infobox consists of relevant information (MOS:IBX), and if the question is layout and appearance, then it makes sense to improve the structure as in these articles: Yemeni_civil_war_(2014–present), Iraq War, or perhaps World War II article. The recent change needs to be reverted until editors agree on the removal of key information and also on the title. Just to let you know I move the page back to its original title until the discussion is closed. Petra0922 (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @محرر البوق: Petra0922 is correct that we should wait until this AfD (deletion debate) is finished before doing a title change. You may start an informal title change proposal at Talk:Ethiopian civil conflict (2018–present). If informal consensus converges (as it seemed to on this page), then after waiting until this AfD is over, double check that nobody objects (generally the simplest is guess what you think the likely consensus is, and then ask 'Does anybody object to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX?', and wait a reasonable delay). (If informal debate is insufficient, then a more structured WP:RM might be necessary.)
    It was me (scroll above) who suggested being WP:BOLD and removing the infobox and then opening a talk page section – so please 'blame' me, not محرر البوق. Since you objected to the bold move, it's clear that there has to be talk page discussion before (possibly) removing the infobox (my prediction of an easy consensus was wrong).
    To both of you: both of these issues now look like side issues of the current AfD – please open up talk page sections to see if consensus can be achieved. New people presenting arguments for or against deletion do not need to see the details of these two (infobox, name change) discussions, and can go to the talk page if they wish to read the details (or if they wish to contribute to those two particular issues). Boud (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boud @Petra0922 Sorry guys. I was not 100% sure how changing the title of an article worked. I'd assumed that when you "moved" an article it would require an administrator approval and open up a discussion page similar to this one just like what happened when I moved the Hurras al-Din article. I was genuinely surprised when name automatically changed but I just went along with it, which wasn't the right thing to do. محرر البوق (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boud@محرر البوق. Agreed. The talk page needs to reflect the AFD. @محرر البوق, we all are learning. One thing I would add is that for such big edits, it would help if you could leave a note to the editor who created the article or significantly contributed, so they participate in such discussions.
    For updating the article’s talk page, do you want to add the deletion information and the title change? I will start the Infobox discussion and comment on the name change once created. If the title must change, then as suggested earlier, Abiy Ahmed Ali is the formal name. Petra0922 (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: As others already noted, all included conflicts are interlinked, making this article neccessary for a overview. My main point of comment is to also oppose the removal of al-Qaeda/al-Shabaab from the article. The 2022 al-Shabaab invasion of Ethiopia was specifically motivated by the existing unrest in Ethiopia, and al-Shabaab hoped to exploit the infighting to expand its own influence in Ethiopia. Several refs in the invasion article mention this. The entire invasion thus took place in the context of the civil conflict. Applodion (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_March_20&oldid=1147021279"