Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 28

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< August 27 August 29 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Skidmore

Hugh Skidmore (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:SPORTSCRIT. A search in google news and British newspaper archives did not yield any decent third party sources. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2024 (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! 23:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaka-Serbian war

Muzaka-Serbian war (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 cited. Likely WP:OR as well. Most of it concerns a "Battle of Pelister" that was recently deleted (nominated by Golikom); see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pelister (1340). So this creation seems to be a compensation for that. Griboski (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Drmies: Since you commented on the related afD, the editor is creating a bunch of POV, unsourced and OR articles. I'm wondering if administration intervention is appropriate here. It follows similar patterns of other new editors collaborating on re-creating similar bad articles that have to be taken to AfD (for example [1] [2]). At the very least, WP:COMPETENCY is an issue.--Griboski (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Griboski, that sounds like a matter for ANI, really... Drmies (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i apologise for this person, he was probably a new one in adding sources but i took responsability of it and modified the page and added the sources and some more, he probably didn't knew how to add them, it's a mistake that everyone can make and we shouldn't really delete this page over a simple mistake.
This page is well made and has some good information so i don't see why we should delete it Randomuser2412 (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not why the article was nominated for deletion. The purpose of adding references is to verify the content in the article. I checked the sources you added and the ones I was able to view had nothing to do with the text it was cited to. For instance:
You cited "The Muzaka-Serbian War was a conflict fought in 1369 between the Principality of Muzaka" to the website ancestry.co.uk's search bar.
You cited "To commemorate his new title, Andrea II adopted a new coat of arms, replacing the traditional Muzaka emblem of a water spring with a double-headed eagle under a star. This symbol was reflective of his enhanced authority and his close ties with the Byzantine Empire." to an irrelevant Euronews Albania article talking about a descendant of the Muzaka family.
You then cited two Wikipedia mirror websites.
Needless to say the book citations are likely also irrelevant to the article. This is now bordering on WP:HOAX. --Griboski (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2024 (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! 23:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Popplewell

Ross Popplewell (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)

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only played 1 first grade game. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched on Trove - Popplewell appears in 58 editions of "The Rugby League news" though almost all are simple team lists, there is also a brief mention in an article in "Royal Australian Navy News" (22 Aug 1969, p.15) - but no evidence of any significant coverage. EdwardUK (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for searching. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Single appearance isn't a notable career, regardless of sourcing. Mn1548 (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2024 (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 consensus to delete here is only rough, once we include the views expressed at the recently closed WP:Articles for deletion/List of star systems within 700-750 light-years, all of which also apply here, there is a clear consensus against keeping this type of article. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of star systems within 500-550 light-years

List of star systems within 500-550 light-years (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)

While the nearest star systems to Earth are regularly discussed as a group, there doesn't seem to be such list notability for these farther away. If this site can be believed, "There are 271,732 stars within 1,000 light-years of Earth which are visible in a backyard telescope." Are we really going to list them all by distance to Earth? I don't know where the best cutoff would be (100 light years seems reasonable), further off it is unusual to group them like this, as they have nothing in common apart from their distance to us, which is not a defining characteristic (stars don't have characteristics which depend on their distance, and don't "interact" within a group either as they are probably at completely different location up to 1100 light years distant from each other in this case). Fram (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same for other lists beyond 100 light-years (or even all lists beyond 80 light-years, which were all recently created by a single user). At some point these lists become impossible to complete and impractical to maintain. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. For comparison, the List of nearest stars includes 131 objects in 94 stellar systems within 20 light years. If you extrapolate that out to the range of 500-550, that would be 5,172 times as many objects. Clearly that would be impractical for a reasonable-sized Wikipedia article. The List of nearest bright stars already covers the brightest stars within 48.9 light years. At some point these lists need to be cut off, and/or the selection criteria tightened up. Finally, there is also the problem of decreasing accuracy with distance: it grows more difficult to restrict a star to a particular list (particularly for the brighter stars). Praemonitus (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the cutoff should be at 100 light-years. A list with a 50 ly of range should be incredibly large.
21 Andromedae (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, that's a pretty silly list: as the radius of the shell grows, the number of stars in it will increase drastically. What purpose does such a list serve? Maybe it makes sense for a list out to 50ly or so, but not more than that. - Parejkoj (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If restricted to notable systems, the list will be intrinsically filtered. Useful for sorting and ordering and contextual comparison. If the list grows large, the article can be split and grouped, or the range refined. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • What "contextual comparison" can be made from the coincidental distance to Earth? Listing stars by type (e.g. the Supernova candidates) may be useful, and is a typical subject for research or discussion: listing stars whose only common characteristic is their distance to Earth (without being very close) doesn't seem "useful for sorting and ordering and contextual comparison" at all. Has any other reliable source made lists like this, or are we the first one to find this useful and so on? Fram (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The scale height of the thin disk is 980–1,300 ly, and we're in about the middle, so I can see keeping lists of stars out to that radius (out to 500 or 650 ly), but no further. Lists for stars > 100 ly, which use a shell thickness of 50 ly, should be restricted to systems which have their own article or redirect to a list entry (e.g. to List of multiplanetary systems, etc.).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Space is 3D. Why is the size of that one direction of the thin disk, but not the other two directions? The lists are not restricted to stars right above or below the Earth axis (or Sun axis). Again, are there sources discussing this list topic (as a group?) Is there anything noteworthy about this grouping? Fram (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are no clear & nearby boundaries in the other directions, so the scale height of the thin disk is the most natural/mathematical stopping point.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's nothing natural about restricting a list of stars in all directions, to a dimension in one direction. And it completely ignores the need for sources for the group. Fram (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • The scale height is not a notability guideline, but a limit to be applied after the notability threshold has been reached. Sources discussing 500-550 are the same as those for other radii - that is, there are no sources that I know of explicitly discussing star systems 20-25, 50-55, 75-80 ly away, yet they were WP:SNOW kept. The same applies here, so explicit, list-range-matching sourcing is not a relevant argument.
            The # of notable objects within x ly will increase as the resolution of our instruments increases. Gaia, for example, provides reasonably accurate distances out to ~10,000 ly, depending on the magnitude, so it is (probably) important to set a cutoff, and not an arbitrary one like 50, 80, or 100 ly.
            Imagine blowing up a balloon sandwiched between 2 flat horizontal plates held apart by some distance. The balloon expands spherically freely until it touches both plates, and then only expands horizontally. That's what's happening here with these lists. The scale height of the thin disk is (metaphorically) the distance between those plates, and so is a natural limit. I'm open to other suggestions, as long as they're not arbitrary.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            There are sources discussing stars within 10 parsecs (~33 light-years) and 20 parsecs (~65 light-years). Beyond that the amount of stars continues to exponentially increase - especially when you start using intervals of 50 light-years instead of 5 light-years. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Agreed, which is why Lists for stars > 100 ly, which use a shell thickness of 50 ly, should be restricted to systems which have their own article or redirect to a list entry.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus here. Would it help to notify a relevant WikiProject or two to this discussion? Also, please do not move articles while an AFD is ongoing...it complicates their closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 28 August 2024 (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 source analysis is pretty convincing so I'm closing this as Delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gar Waterman

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

Article about a local artist created by a now banned editor who acknowledged a WP:COI with the subject. Does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST and a WP:BEFORE search does not appear to show any WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Connecticut, Maine, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I found some more recent information, including a very long article in the New Haven Independent which has info that should be added to the article. (I did some minor additions and included this as a reference.) I also found that he has a piece permanently in the Hood Museum of Art at Dartmouth. Since the notability criteron is stated as a plural ("been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums") this probably falls short. I have read in informal accounts that he had a major exhibit at Yale's Peabody museum but haven't nailed that down. In G-Books there are gallery guides that show that he had exhibits but these are mere listings of times and places Lamona (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - I updated the expired 404 citations with archives and I think there might be a possibility he's notable. Once I go thru the updated sources, will !vote. Not totally sure yet, as the first source is really about a hardware store, not him, the second source is about an open studio tour (with just a picture and mention of him.) The fifth source doesn't mention him at all, which is how far I got so far. Some of the reviews seem fine, however whether he meets GNG and the stricter NARTIST criteria to be determined. Netherzone (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is ref bombed with sources that are just passing mentions. Multiple citations for the identity of his wife, 7 sources for the lede. Not a reason for deletion, but still the article needs some editing. Specifically bio info from his personal website The Hood Museum piece is a donation from the Dartmouth's Class of 1978 (his alma mater and class). --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. A source analysis would be helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20120910171916/http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/04/29/news/new_haven/doc4bd8f9b661725235986130.txt Yes Yes No article about hardware store ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20101103022230/http://newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/city-wide_open_studios_the_westville_renaissance/id_30327 Yes No blog post No local review of exhibition ✘ No
https://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/article/thrown_for_a_curve/ Yes No blog post No artilce about Gallery 195 ✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/27/realestate/for-1-the-best-little-warehouse-in-new-haven.html Yes Yes ? behind paywall ? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20120910172028/http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/07/11/news/doc4c392b0a0f581383306064.txt Yes Yes No article about New Haven Arena ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20120921233449/http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2002/sep/13/a-hidden-secret-in-subdued-westville/ Yes Yes No article about real estate and physical studio ✘ No
webarchive.loc.gov/all/20080918035854/http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/gone_dishin/ Yes No blog post No arts listing ✘ No
https://www.newhavenindependent.org/article/the_hands_of_gar_waterman Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
http://garwaterman.com/bio/ No No artist's own website No ✘ No
https://hoodmuseum.dartmouth.edu/news/2015/01/recent-acquisitions-gar-waterman-feral-seed Yes Yes Yes note of Hood Museum aquisition ✔ Yes
https://www.huinoeau.com/art-events/2023/1/talk-story-with-2023-artist-in-residence-gar-waterman No No No announcement of welcome party ✘ No
https://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/article/whalley_avenue_of_their_dreams/ Yes Yes No article about traffic flow on Whalley Avenue ✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/29/style/thea-buxbaum-gar-waterman.html Yes Yes No wedding annoucnment ✘ No
https://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/article/bza_to_rule_whether_bed_and_breakfast_is_inn_or_out/ Yes Yes No article about wife's B&B ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20100726212850/http://www.naia.com.fj/post.php?stone-nudis-18 No No No call for photographs ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete - I was on the fence about this article, however the detailed source analysis by WomenArtistUpdates helped to clarify. It takes a long time to construct these, thanks for taking the time to do so. I can read the "unknown" source in the table, it's an article in the NYT real estate ("Habitat") section. It's in-depth, but it's about a warehouse he and his wife purchased. It's not an analytical/critical review of his work. Although he's been working for some time, I think it is still TOOSOON for an encyclopedia article. Netherzone (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2024 (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 Queensland first-class cricketers. Owen× ☎ 12:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Brimblecombe

Cameron Brimblecombe (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)

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NCRIC. A player is unlikely to be notable with just 1 first class game. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verging on speedy. Nom fails to raise a case of why deletion is required when in the prod decline a valid alternative to deletion was directly identified, "a redirect to the List of Queensland first-class cricketers" WP:ATD-R. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How does he meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, WP:NCRIC or indeed WP:BIO? Failing the relevant notability is grounds for deletion, that's based on my 17 years in WP. LibStar (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious redirect to List of Queensland first-class cricketers. I did already suggest this to the nom, not only when I declined the prod but on a message at their talk page, and I'd have been perfectly happy with a bold redirect here or a discussion at the cricket wiki project followed by that. This is the long established consensus with articles about cricketers where sources cannot be found: it dates back to 2018 at least and is a clear ATD. Ideally we'd get a short note added - the content of the paragraph including the Hope quote would form the basis of this which would allow references to come across as well. Having looked for more sources, there's bit there but the only one that hinted at detail was behind a paywall and I'm pretty relaxed about people such as this being redirected if there aren't sources and an ATD exists. The number of matches played is largely irrelevant. If anyone things that they can come up with a quantitative measure to determine a "bight line criteria" for first-class cricketers then good luck to them; I'd be happy to listen to any. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 28 August 2024 (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! 23:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SDSSCGB 10189

SDSSCGB 10189 (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 or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850 SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm aiming to keep this article instead of deleting it. Based on the notability guidelines on Astronomy objects, it is presumed notable since there's some significant coverage on the galaxy, such as the ESA paper released February last year, [5] and also an article by Sci Fi News, [6]. Does anyone agree it should be kept? Galaxybeing (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the same notability criteria you cited emphasizes significant, non-trivial coverage of the object. Both of the articles you cited only mention the galaxies as merging together, while the rest of the article tells about BCGs and Hubble future plans observations. There is no comprehensive characterization of these galaxies' properties that should make them noteworthy. SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns Mr. SkyFlubber. This object is not notable. First it isn't a topic of several studies. Second the only mention of the galaxy is in the ESA paper which doesn't any provide any significant commentary. This leaves me the only option to Delete. Galaxybeing (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted, a single press release does not make something notable. There's no paper specifically about this source. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2024 (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! 23:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2MASX J09133888-1019196

2MASX J09133888-1019196 (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 or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850 SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2024 (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. Once we discard the clearly canvassed (sock?) votes, we land on a clear consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 12:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E. A. Jabbar

E. A. Jabbar (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 no reliable sources, almost all sources are self-published, clearly fails WP:GNG. Thank you! Youknow? (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia need to be balanced. The person whom he had debate with M. M. Akbar has English references than him just because he is an Islamic scholar and this person is an atheist. On Indian atheism topic he is notable. So for English reference better tag with ‘need more English references’. Do not delete the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.59.127.107 (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to Closer. All IP votes geolocate to Virginia and close proximity to Washington DC and are likely same person. RangersRus (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advice to IP which approached my talk page: Sorry if a IP is indulging in socking no point in providing advice at user talk page, hence here. Overzealous attitudes can be unhelpful and counter productive. I suggest the IP to voluntarily distance from topic area and first substantially improve acquaintance regarding checks and balances of various Wikipedia:Policies - it takes hard study work. Last but not least avoid WP:CANVASS, WP:SOCK, if any. Bookku (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom.MAL MALDIVE (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : failed WP:GNG, This is a YouTube promotion ( WP:NOTPROMO ), Like self writing, there are many YouTubers like this in Kerala and he is only one person, so there is no need for an article --Spworld (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What a mess.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, this Afd is divisive, with various allegations of sockpuppetry and a consensus unlikely to emerge. As such, to help determine Jabbar's notability, I have prepared a {{Source assess table}} to help determine Jabbar's notability. I don't expect this table to be too long, considering the current sources in the article are mostly from one major publication. Note that this only reflects the sources in the article as of September 3, and does not account for any futurre additions.


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Clintonfan1022
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.youtube.com/eajabbar/about No Subject's own YouTube page Yes In this context, the source is being used only to confirm Jabbar's total views and subscribers. Yes Obviously, his own YouTube page is going to be about himself. ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kozhikode/rationalist-seeks-police-protection-over-blog-threat-in-kozhikode/articleshow/53581885.cms Yes I don't see any promotional wording in the article, so it doesn't appear to fall afoul of NEWSORGINDIA. No WP:TOI states that the Times of India sometimes had a poor reputation for fact-checking. This article is related to politics and religion, and is not supplemented by other reliable sources, so I think Wikipedia shoud err on the side of caution here and not use it for determining notability. Yes The article is dedicated entirely to Jabbar, and his request for police protection. ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/tracking-indian-communities/to-believe-or-not/ Yes The author doesn't appear to have any connection with Jabbar. No As above. This also appears to be a blog post, rather than a conventional article. The author's profile has no description, and I couldn't find anything that seemed like it could be them. Furthermore, the paragraphs where Jabba is mentioned are largely his own words. ? As mentioned, the article is mostly a quotation of his own words, and doesn't expand on that at all, aside from a brief introduction. ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kozhikode/kys-rebuts-knms-attack-on-neo-atheism/articleshow/80237935.cms Yes No indication of not being independent. No See the first source. No The article is mostly about a debate involving Jabbar, and not Jabbar himself. ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/tracking-indian-communities/god-doesnt-need-us-to-save-him/ Yes No This is another blog post, written by the same person. Yes The article is dedicated to Jabbar. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

N.B -- The article has 7 sources as of writing, but two are used twice. There's no indication in the article's current sourcing that it passes WP:GNG, and therefore I recommend deletion. Clintonfan1022 (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's remarkable, Clintonfan1022, that your first and only edit is putting together a source analysis table in an AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian biographies are not my normal editing area, so I include these for any interested editor. Tag it with Template:BLP sources (more citations needed). 5Q5|✉ 11:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the matter order mentioned in the link
1-[16]. About EX-Muslim in India.
There are many names in facebook groups and youtube groups in India, what is the connection with these article? Only a small mention is in this link
People have left Christianity in America and they are posting videos on Facebook and YouTube. Will they pass the notability quality as an article??
2- [17]. About EX-Muslim in Kerala India, Liyakkathali, President of Ex-Muslim Online Association in Kerala, said in this link
It's about It is not this article.
3-[18]. In the wake of the terrorist attack in Paris in 2016, there was a threat of violence from civilian terrorists in Kerala.
The incident did not happen. There is a small mention in this news that his name was mentioned in their list.
There is no source of notability to base this article on
4-[19]. This link explains the differences between Islamic law and Islamophobia, the subject of the debate which took place in it was Ex- Muslim opinions , not a significant mention of this article, And a report that looks like a sponsored news
5-[20]. Sponsored link , Magazine . No significant mention
6-[21]. blog post look like Sponsored blog
7-[22] (pdf). pdf about 2014 Kiss of Love protest
8-[23]. Mentioned in this link His own YouTube link Spworld2 (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2024 (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! 23:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MCG -01-24-014

MCG -01-24-014 (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 notability. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 20:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 12:32, 3 September 2024 (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. Deleted as G5. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali Swati

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

The subject is known for just one event so this falls under WP:BIO1E, which means the subject doesn’t really qualify for a standalone BLP, yet. Also clearly fails to meet GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:55, 28 August 2024 (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 James Webb Space Telescope. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PGC 2046648

PGC 2046648 (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 or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850. SkyFlubbler (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I want to say keep solely because of how cool it looks, I'll have go delete per nom. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 20:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's one source I could find for this least known galaxy which is the ESA paper, [29]. But this barely provides any significant coverage. I would prefer redirecting it to James Webb Space Telescope as it was captured amongst with other galaxies, if appropriate. If not, then I'll just have to go with the flow and vote delete. Galaxybeing (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Being featued in the picture of the month from James Webb is uncommon, but there is barely any commentary about the galaxy it self. It wasn't even the target of the telescope. --C messier (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2024 (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. No new comments since the 2nd relisting so I'm closing this as No consensus. A possible rename can be discussed on the talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poșta Veche (disambiguation)

Poșta Veche (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)

Redundant dab page. Poșta Veche links directly to Stângăceaua commune and the second entry does not contain this name at all. If it contained it, the solution would be a hatnote on the commune page, not a dab page. FromCzech (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:49, 28 August 2024 (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! 23:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3789

IC 3789 (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 or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850. SkyFlubbler (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 20:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to any list if appropriate since this object only has primary sources which doesn't have any significant coverage on it. Galaxybeing (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no list of IC objects on Wikipedia. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 13:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco bowdlerization

Tobacco bowdlerization (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)

Interesting topic and research, but I am afraid this is very WP:ORish. |The very term of 'Tobacco bowdlerization' seems like a Wikipedia-only OR and does not exist in other sources. Some content from here could, perhaps, be merged to Smoking ban. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is pure WP:MADEUP TVTropes-esque WP:SYNTH, and most of the cases seem to merely involve the removal of cigarettes and their smoke more as visual clutter in secondary work than any attempt to 'censor' smoking, or removing it from images where it just makes no sense to have them (i.e. Goodnight Moon). Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 29 August 2024 (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 Keep view, and its accompanying per !vote, fail to rebut the deficiency in notability, resulting in a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 14:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion

Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion (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)

Excessive detail, list of people who for the most part played only a very minor role in the Rebellion and which doesn't add understanding or necessary background. First entry "Atkins was with the foot police at the Eureka Stockade". Second entry "he was a police orderly at the Eureka Stockade." So what? Fram (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would just note that The Eureka Encyclopedia has a stand-alone entry for "Policing in Ballarat" where some of the information comes from. Robbiegibbons (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It gets worse: "Calvin ... May have been at the Eureka Stockade. Athel cb (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they were listed as officially killed or injured it's hard to be certain of their status. Here's a typical entry from The Eureka Encyclopedia that shows how they deal with it:
"CULPECK, THOMAS A private in the 12th Regiment (no 2797), he was probably present during the storming of the Eureka Stockade on 3 December 1854, being in Ballarat during the third muster. He was probably the Thomas Culpeck who married Mary Putrtill in 1857 in Tasmania." Robbiegibbons (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
actually now that I think of it, what about renaming the article "Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion" and then I'm willing to truncate it. Robbiegibbons (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename and improve, the topic is notable and needs to be more than a mere list of possible participants. The role of the police on the goldfields as a factor in the Eureka rebellion, their role at the stockade, and as witnesses in the Treason trials are worth documenting. Plenty of sources available beyond Eurekapedia which seems a little weak in this area. --Matilda talk 21:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    we can similarly replace the "List of colonial forces in the Eureka Rebellion" with another article "British army in the Eureka Rebellion" that will cover the topic and contain only a much-reduced list of notable soldiers if at all. We can discuss all the really important ones in the body of the article. Robbiegibbons (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we need hear from more Australian wikipedians 2001:8003:22BA:7101:BD11:1799:9C87:E8A7 (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheryene N. Tejeda

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

Insufficient reliable third-party sources for WP:BIO notability; nearly all of the references are either press releases or journal articles. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The sources cited are reputable and relevant to the subject's contributions to the field. The Tejeda Equation, which Dr. Sheryene N. Tejeda developed, is referenced in multiple academic and medical publications. This equation is particularly significant in the study and treatment of Endometriosis, the area in which Dr. Tejeda is most renowned. I believe the article meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria, especially in the context of Dr. Tejeda’s work in medical science. Given the importance and relevance of the subject, I recommend that the page should be retained. Laurynasee (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC) — Laurynasee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
?? There aren't any so-called sources. There are no other-citations to the paper. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
The equation is not reference anywhere, other than in her own paper. If you can share some, we'll review them, but I couldn't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Laurynasee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Qflib (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have cited the same link as XOR. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign footballers in the Persian Gulf Pro League

List of foreign footballers in the Persian Gulf Pro League (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, the sort of list that would be far better served by a category. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Andhra Pradesh caste-based survey

2024 Andhra Pradesh caste-based survey (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 survey was scheduled to be held in the first quarter of 2024. However, it was not conducted. Post 2024 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, the government changed. No developments were made. Hence I propose deletion. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2024 (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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Njoroge Chege

Herman Njoroge Chege (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)

Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC, nor other notability criteria. Filled with puffery, and a long history (back to 2013!) of editing by a single-purpose account, User:Njoroge Wa Chege. Rather cleverly, that user has set a redirect from their user page to Herman Njoroge Chege. A recent PROD was reversed, hence moving to AfD. Klbrain (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Whole Experience

The Whole Experience (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:NCORP. The article only cites its list of games and a short overview at MobyGames. I tried finding articles from reliable sources on this company, couldn't find anything. MK at your service. 17:09, 28 August 2024 (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 IRC. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snoonet

Snoonet (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, contested WP:BLAR not RS coverage found on a WP:BEFORE search. Sohom (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 06:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomenology (general science and discourse)

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

I first draftified this, but it was recreated. A rather unfocused essay, linking to a long youtube video uploaded by someone with the same name as the creator of this article. No idea what e.g. "Homo Erectus, Habilis, and then Sapiens also followed each other with great diasporas; that evidence shows also kept in touch, at least for new ideas to spread from end to end over a few decades, as how they formed diverse languages that spoke about the same experiences of nature. " is supposed to mean, and something like "a broad model of how the great early languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, might seem to have emerged fully formed as they were written down following the Bronze Age." seems decidedly un-mainstream science. Fram (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • JLH Reply - I updated the page today. I finished late, but before reading these notes, I significantly reshaped them in the way the above notes suggested. It's one heck of an important topic, though: the long view of what gave language reliable meaning, viewed at this time when the usefulness of language is breaking down all around us, for not anchoring our meanings to things everyone can relate to. I suggest you leave it up unless you find it polluting in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessieHenshaw (talk • contribs) 2024-08-30T04:52:56 (UTC)
  • Delete, or Draftify mainly so it can be completely rewritten from scratch and resubmitted via WP:AfC (i.e. WP:TNT). I agree that it is an important topic, but the current form is too far from acceptable as an encyclopedic article. Please look at some others and restructure from scratch, not just an update. If the originator and others will accept I can draftify it; we don't normally do that during an AfD discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trust the science-Reply2 I've done what I can for now in the first draft and general second draft revision of Phenomenology (general science and discourse). The present form responded to many of these objections above prior to my reading them. The main problem is that the word "phenomenology" came to mean so many different things and was strongly influenced by the philosophical study of appearances. That produced nice discussions of lots of things but is a profoundly unfocused reference to the Greek meaning of the word, which translates as "the study of phenomena." Perception is still a phenomenon, of course, but even a philosophy of perception is not a study of the phenomena of perception.
So, as we deal with the extraordinary ancient and emerging biases of human perception and add to long lists of terms for "disambiguation," misleading biases may still reign as favorite expressions of other fields. That also creates the opportunity for someone to come along and start the "de-ambiguating" of misused words to retain a connection to their original root meaning.
So, the project taken on here, to begin such a process, is a rather modest one now, written by a senior scientist with a very broad understanding of what science is and isn't, where it came from, and may or may not be going. I believe it would be healthy for language to remain anchored, as it began, to commonly recognizable phenomena so that our individual interpretations can all have the same roots in nature, largely independent of interpretation.
It seems certain that language had to begin with that, as by the dawn of civilization, language had already developed into an amazingly effective and useful tool for understanding how to live, create complex and rich cultures, and care for living things. That shows a level of understanding life that the great power of science has still not come close to matching.
Of course, language has become much more sophisticated, varied, and freely inventive, and it is also much less linked to things independent of the feedback loops of perception, I think we can all agree. JessieHenshaw (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2024 (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 World Backgammon Federation. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom Backgammon Federation

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

Article soft-deleted in 2022, then recreated as a redirect to World Backgammon Federation, then recently recreated with no additional evidence of notability under WP:NORG. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. I would be OK either with outright deletion or with the restoration of a stable redirect per consensus as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2024 (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 History of Saturday Night Live. Since it appears that some content may have already been transferred to the new article, I will be tagging these as "R with history" to preserve the attributions. RL0919 (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Saturday Night Live (1975–1980)

AfDs for this article:
History of Saturday Night Live (1975–1980) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the other pages in this SNL history series:

These articles are rife with original research, unsourced and poorly sourced statements, useless cast trivia, and redundant cast lists that are already located in their respective season articles. Most of the pages segment everything by season anyway and are not the broader look at the show history that they are supposed to be. Several of them have had cleanup tags for almost a decade. They are rarely edited. And they are arbitrarily segmented by five year increments for no specific reason; this appears to be a random decision made 20 years ago in 2004 that nobody has questioned since then.

Myself and another editor have been working on a successor for these pages; it's currently at Draft:History of Saturday Night Live. It functions as the broader look at show history that these nine pages were supposed to be. It is not just redundant of the existing season pages; it makes extensive use of reliable sources and is the broader look at show history. I propose that this new page replace these existing pages. There are many benefits to this: consolidating editor efforts on one page, ditching the arbitrary separation, less maintenance effort required across multiple pages, etc.

I have already merged any non-duplicate info from these old pages into the appropriate SNL season articles. There will be nothing lost by deleting/redirecting them to the new page. I announced this plan about a week ago on the SNL talk page and have received no opposition at this point. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • the current status of the draft vs. the mainspace article is confusing - is the draft article a copy of the existing article that got edited?
  • the draft is extremely long now, over 127K but the draft currently seems manageable because of headings/subheadings
Oblivy (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The draft started as a copy of the existing history on the main SNL page and was then expanded, and portions of some other articles were used in some cases, remixed, and condensed (per summary style) attempting to give credit in edit summaries where possible. Regarding the length, it is long, but it is a lot to cover and consideration has been given to give equal weight to different eras without breaching the rules of thumb on WP:LENGTH. Parts of the article may still be able to be optimised to further reduce size, but I'd argue that it's an appropriate size for the amount of time that it's covering. StewdioMACK (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrative close 1) To the extent that text has been used from these articles in a draft, we cannot delete these without deleting that draft, per WP:CWW. 2) The draft is apparently not ready for prime time, and a redirect from these articles to draft space would be an impermissible cross-namespace redirect. 3) There should be no waiting period per WP:RENOM to redirect these to the draft once it is mainspaced. That is, this is a bit premature, although the final solution is obvious and probably not controversial enough to even need an AfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: To clarify, the article is ready for primetime; every part of the article is a significant improvement over its predecessors that I've nominated, and I've just made some further edits today. Apologies if this is seen as a misuse of AfD but I believed it was consenus to use AfD for potentially contentious significant moves like this. I've just attempted to mainspace the new article but ran into technical issues as there's an existing redirect at the new address (History of Saturday Night Live); if it's the preferred course of action, maybe I can take this to requested moves, boldly redirect the old articles (to preserve page histories), and we can close this AfD. StewdioMACK (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the corresponding sections of the full History article or the History article itself once the draft is moved to mainspace. (To clarify, I am one of the contributors to the draft.) If it were me, I would have moved the draft to mainspace first because it's already of decent quality, then AfD the articles, or even boldly redirect them. I would move it right now, but not until I get StewdioMACK's input, and the AfD is already ongoing, anyways. And as a note to other contributors, there are plans to develop the article to cut out cruft plus possibly sending it to PR for a check, so no worries on any problems currently existing with the draft. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Before anyone asks: StewdioMACK did say that they were going to AfD the articles here, but I misread it as AfC (Articles for Creation; I interpreted it as letting the draft go through the AfC process, which I had no objections with). Spinixster (trout me!) 02:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Moved the draft to mainspace (History of Saturday Night Live) per WT:AFD. C F A 💬 15:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney McAvoy

Courtney McAvoy (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 GNG. The Edinburgh Evening News articles contain little on her and are far too quote heavy for sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maura Paterson

Maura Paterson (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 GNG. The Daily Record is a tabloid therefore shouldn't be used in BLPs. Dougal18 (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign secretary (Kerala)

Foreign secretary (Kerala) (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 a real government position. The sources all say that a secretary of labour and skills in the Kerala government "will hold the additional charge of the matters connected with external affairs." This has apparently been seized upon by political opponents of the Kerala government within India as being a quasi-"foreign secretary" role, but there are no reliable sources that describe it as such; this term is solely attributed to individuals being quoted. This article at best fails WP:NPOV and WP:NRV (and thus fails WP:GNG); at worst it could be considered a WP:HOAX since the office described does not, by any reliable source, exist. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2024 (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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War

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

It is with a heavy heart that I propose deletion of this page.

The reason is simple: the scope of this article is untenable. When this page was originally created in 2014, it attempted to provide socio-historical background information for readers of the article 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which covered then ongoing protests in particular regions of that country. It primarily served as a sub-article of 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, because that article had got too long. The scope of the article at the time of its creation was a product of that time, and the limited sources that were then available. As the conflict evolved, it became apparent that the article was no longer functioning, leading to a previous deletion discussion in 2022. The result of that discussion was 'keep', despite acknowledgement of concerns about the article's content, including potential WP:OR analysis of primary sources.

All of the existing content has been systematically deleted from the article this year, and the article moved and rescoped. Now, this article purports to provide the historical background to the multi-faceted geopolitical conflict that is the Russo-Ukrainian War, and yet completely fails to do so. In fact, it is unlikely that it will ever be able to do so, because its scope is too broad, with much of the relevant content provided in other articles, such as Russo-Ukrainian War. At present, it seems to be nothing more than a WP:COATRACK for miscellaneous history, without any clear narrative or connection to the actual topic it purports to describe: no link is established between the article contents and the war that began in 2014.

Is the whole history of Ukraine within the scope of this article? The whole history of Russia? These could both legitimately claimed to be 'historical background' to the current conflict, and there may be reliable sources that establish such a reality. However, an article with such a scope could never actually function on Wikipedia as anything other than a WP:POVFORK of other better articles on this subject, such as Russia–Ukraine relations. Unfortunately, I think my dear friend Iryna, ever the wisest, has been proven correct by the test of time. She warned me and others that this article would become 'the biggest coatrack Wikipedia has ever seen', and that there was little hope in creating anything of value to the reader with an article scope this broad. Ah, the naivety of youth. If only I had listened...

Fundamentally, the deletion of the existing article content without community consensus is concerning from a procedural point of view. However, I agree in principle that the removed content no longer has an encyclopaedic purpose. For this reason, I suggest this article be deleted. 'Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War' may be a notable concept, though I note that no other war covered on Wikipedia has a similar article. I caution, as Iryna did so many years ago, that any such article is liable to become a WP:COATRACK. However, even if such an article is deemed viable for creation, in content, concept and scope, it would still be fundamentally different from the article the existed for ten years from 2014, and therefore I believe 'Blow it up and start over' applies. I propose a clean start. Who is with me? RGloucester — ☎ 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brat Forelli: If the whole history of Russo-Ukrainian relations is to be considered the 'historical background' of the war, how will this article ever serve as anything other than a content fork of Russia–Ukraine relations? RGloucester — ☎ 00:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it serves a different purpose is because the Russian-Ukrainian relations do not provide a complete backgroud into the war, as there is also the Russian domestic developments and its relations with NATO that would be within the scope of this article. Brat Forelli🦊 01:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not provide a complete background into the war. No single article can ever provide a complete historical background of the war, because that would need to include the totality of Russian history, Ukrainian history, Nato history, &c., all of which are already covered in existing articles, which are already linked and described in the 'Background' section of Russo-Ukrainian War. For example, note Russia–NATO relations. Across Wikipedia, no other war has a 'historical background' article. What makes this a special case? What will this article achieve that is not achieved by the existing articles?　RGloucester — ☎ 01:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two books by excellent, academic historians which we can follow when working on the article, see my "Keep" comment above. This war is special because Putin himself goes back all the way to the Middle Ages to justify the war, e.g. Putin's text On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content in the article now, while referenced, does not indicate its connection to the subject it purports to describe, and is, at this time, merely duplication of content existing in other articles like the one you just referenced. 'This war is special', you say, but I can think of many other geopolitical conflicts involving mediaeval historical claims, for example the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict or the current war in Gaza. And yet, none of these have a 'historical background' article. RGloucester — ☎ 07:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. The scope is unclear (should we start from 1169? 1648? 1918? 1991?). The argument that there are books about this topic is untenable. Kapeller's book is about the relationship between the Ukrainians and Russians (Unequal Brothers: Russians and Ukrainians from the Middle Ages to the Present). We can and should use information in these sources to improve existing articles. Alaexis¿question? 09:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We start with Volodymyr / Vladimir the Great, because that's where Putin starts his narrative and where Kappeler and Plokhy (and Snyder and Jobst and possibly more historians) start. Kappeler's preface to the 1st edition mentions Russia's occupation of Crimea in the very first sentence, his preface to the 2nd edition mentions the Russian attack of February 2024 in the very first words. Plokhy's book title is "The Russo-Ukrainian War". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Iryna's metaphor of a lamb tied to a tree is well said and correct, if kept the article would need a high level of protection in order to avoid vandalism and excessive bias Microplastic Consumer (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the scope of this article is untenable
Why so? We have numerous academic books discussing the article subject in-depth.
Ukraine's Unnamed War - Google Books literally has "Historical background" chapter.
Some are even titled just like that: The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Manyareasexpert: This seems to be a "Keep" vote. Is my understanding correct ? Rsk6400 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. The editor nominating the article for deletion was supposed to respond with an argument. If there is no response, that means their main argument is disproved, and the article should be kept. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as I said in my proposal for deletion, I believe this article to fall under Item 5, 'content forks'. RGloucester — ☎ 21:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to approach your "fork" argument with the note that "history of Russia", "history of Ukraine" you suggested the "Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War" is the fork of, all have different scopes and so don't conform to the definition of WP:CFORK. But I also noted that your actual suggestion in a deletion proposal is to delete the current article and to create a new one. Which means your whole deletion proposal contradicts itself. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that WP:TNT is an essay about an editorial approach to a topic that meets our notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Going back to the 1930's famine and thousands of years before is a bit of a stretch... I mean, they don't like each other and this can be explained. But I would expect a history of the more recent past, why did they invade, what happened in the weeks/months and years before that, not a hundred or thousand years ago... This could basically be summarized as "The countries have a long history of opposition" or some similar wording, then go onto the most recent causes of the war. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can replace this whole article in a sentence or two; the "history of opposition between Ukraine and Russia" could be an article, apart from this war. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Going back to the 1930's famine and thousands of years before is a bit of a stretch
    It looks like a content dispute, but if sources are provided, what options do we have? other then to vote to delete the article because of that.
    I mean, feels like every book I encounter on Ukraine War, has some section on its historical background. Russia's Approach to Post-Conflict Reconstruction - Google Books "Root Causes" section starts in 1774... ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they do - it wouldn't be much good for a book to provide no context! They're also... books. They can take thousands and thousands of words to make an academic argument about the topic. When we need that many thousands of words, we split our articles into multiple, more specific articles. That's what has happened here. We're not obligated to keep articles simply because sources exist that deal with the topic - we can make editorial decisions about what articles ought to exist, and how. Have a look at Russo-Ukrainian War#History, which serves the remit of this article quite well, with many appropriate links to more in-depth articles on specific points of that history. -- asilvering (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a look at Russo-Ukrainian War#History
    You probably meant the "Background" section which talks about our topic. The Russo-Ukrainian War is about 12,500 words which means a suggestion to divide or trim it is applicable - WP:SIZERULE . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're right, I meant background. Though the history section does illustrate the same thing quite well. -- asilvering (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the well-written and persuasive nom, the article doesn't have a clear scope and is a WP:CFORK of content that fits in other articles. It is unclear, reading the article, what the article is supposed to do, as it is essentially a bullet point list of various events that have occurred through the past 1,000 years. The topic area is broad, and in some way comes down to narratives of the past, which are interesting but difficult to write an encyclopaedia article about, and if they are tackled are probably best tackled in another framework. If the article served a different purpose yet had its content reshaped entirely as the nom suggests, then perhaps the original purpose was similarly diffuse and hard to define. In some sense, the historical background is just the history, and we have various History articles already. There is also a large history section in Russia–Ukraine relations which covers a similar set of events. That article could stand a little history trimming, or perhaps a sub-article, but that would be a general history of relations rather than trying to explore links to a specific conflict. CMD (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis: Just for the record: What you call "well-written and persuasive" is at least in part misleading. The article with its shortcoming at the time of its creation was not a product of that time, and the limited sources that were then available. I pointed that out in March[31]. And there was no deletion of the existing article content without community consensus - I criticized the shortcomings a long time before fixing them, see Talk:Historical_background_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War/Archive_1#Scope and following discussions in that talk archive. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing in that archive anything that makes the opening here in part misleading. RGloucester seems to have written it at the time with the sources they had available, even if that was not every possible source that existed. CMD (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, I must point out, that were previously considered seminal in the field, but that have now been completely eliminated from the article, such as Kuromiya 1998 and Siegelbaum & Walkowitz 1995. I do not disagree that there were and are shortcomings: that is why I have proposed the article for deletion. These shortcomings originate from the scope of the article itself; nothing other than deletion can solve the problems facing this article. RGloucester — ☎ 09:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, I must point out, that were previously considered seminal in the field, but that have now been completely eliminated from the article, such as Kuromiya 1998 and Siegelbaum & Walkowitz 1995
You really say that 1998 and 1995 sources are "seminal" in a field of 2014 - 2024 events. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis, as late as March 2022, RGloucester claimed that There was genuine domestic unrest in Ukraine in 2014[32]. A year later, I replied, You based the whole article on your idea that there was "genuine domestic unrest" in 2014, but you don't give any sources to support that idea - which is certainly not mainstream. Mainstream historians like the ones I mentioned below clearly state that the unrest was a result of decisions made in the Kremlin. That you followed a non-mainstream idea when writing this article seems to be the main cause of most of the problems of this article.[33] I still hold that the problems were not caused by the limited sources of the time. They were caused by that unsourced, fringe idea of the author. The second misleading claim is that I changed the article without consensus. I even pinged RGloucester more than three months before making significant changes to the article. Nobody is obliged to enter in a discussion, but they shouldn't complain afterwards that there was no consensus. If nobody objects, that's silent consensus. There is a third misleading claim regarding the moving of the article. In the edit summary to the move, which RGloucester correctly linked above, (repeating the link for convenience) I pointed to the relevant move discussion in which I had no part. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The move discussion is now in the arcive, Talk:Historical_background_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War/Archive_1#Requested_move_22_June_2020 Rsk6400 (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: I just see that you supported the move. And now you are complaining about it ? Rsk6400 (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: See 'Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine', which was linked above. I expect someone forgot to do some of the necessary administrative work. Or perhaps, my error upon making this nomination? In any case, for your reference... RGloucester — ☎ 08:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unsustainable article, clearly unnecessary WP:CFORK. The Russo-Ukrainian War is not so magically special that it needs a dedicated "historical background" article, something not done for any other conflict, (to the extent that this does by going back far more than a century) covered by the many other articles that make this one redundant; there's tons of academic, reliable content to source this article to, so notability is clear, but what should be in the article, or why we need it at all when it is covered by Russia-Ukraine relations, history of Russia and Ukraine, Russians in Ukraine, etc. is what makes this "historical background" article an unwarranted content fork, and any historical background article on a conflict for that matter, redundant. I disagree that this is simply a case of WP:TNT, in that I don't think unless something major changes any article of this sort is necessary, (and this already seems like a case of TNT without the delete button) nor is leaving it alone "as it just needs some improvement" a good idea either as that improvement realistically won't happen, and the current situation of the reader clicking on the "main article" hatnote from the Russo-Ukrainian War article in hope of a full-length article expanding on the background section (i.e. starting from 1991) only to find a ~600 word article largely unrelated to the "background" of the actual war (not the history of relations between Russia and Ukraine in general) is not great either. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any information that is directly in the background of the Russo-Ukrainian War does not need its own article, and instead should be placed in the background section of the Russo-Ukrainian War article. Any information that is more broadly related to the relations between Russia and Ukraine should be placed in Russia-Ukraine relations. This article should be deleted, regardless of how much it is improved, because it is a content fork of multiple other articles. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it is a content fork of multiple other articles
    WP:CFORK A content fork is a piece of content (such as an inter-wiki object, a page, or a page section) that has the same scope as another piece of content that predated it, essentially covering the same topic - how an article could have the same scope as multiple other articles? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the scope of this article is not clear. Is it attempting to cover Russia-Ukraine relations in general? (in which case it would be a fork of Russia-Ukraine relations). Is it meant to cover the entire history of Ukraine? (in which case it would be a content fork of History of Ukraine) the entire history of Russia? The scope of something talking about the "Background of the Russo-Ukrainian war" should be more restricted than the current article, and does not need a standalone article. Gödel2200 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of something talking about the "Background of the Russo-Ukrainian war" should be more restricted
Now, are we saying that the scope of the "historical background" is undefined, or are we questioning the current article content? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both. Much of the content in this article is only dubiously related to the Russo-Ukrainian war, or, at the very least, the article makes no indication of how it is related. We certainly should have a "Background of the Russo-Ukrainian war" (and we already do), but adding "historical" into the title seems to me to only cause confusion. Gödel2200 (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the scope of the "historical background" article is easily defined if we as editors stop to try to define it using our guesses on what should it cover and what should it not, and let the RSs to define it, right? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is clearly simplistic and biased. Unless someone neutral wants to do a real effort on this, better delete it. 2001:638:508:F003:D7AA:DA60:16DA:2D64 (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GS/RUSUKR Rsk6400 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Russia–Ukraine relations That article seems to have more or less the same scope. Putin uses the same timeframe in his justifications of the war and historians like Plokhy and Kappeler also use that timeframe. A redirect also has the advantage of preserving the long discussions on the talk page. The article was once called a "Good article". Rsk6400 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics and Pragmatics

Semantics and Pragmatics (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 journal. Three sources are listed, two of them not independent. The third one shows that this jourl is not listed in any selective database. WP:BEFORE does not unearth additional independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now updated further with more independent references, including Barbara Partee's contribution to The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics, which names the journal as part of a notable development in the field, thus satisfying Criterion 3 as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botterweg14 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Janssen/zimmerman ef: not independent (Zimmerman is an editorial board member); Philips reference: self-published blog; Haspelmath: in-passing mention on a blog; Partee ref: impossible to evaluate without a clearer link; Potts: self-published blog and also not independent (Potts is an editorial board member). So, no, "speedy keep" is absolutely not justified. Rhetorical question: if this journal is so crucial, how come it isn't indexed in any selective databases? --Randykitty (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I have now updated the article again so that it cites an earlier edition of the SEP article, for which Theo Janssen was the sole author. Since Janssen is not among the 403 members of the editorial board, this is an independent source. Since this settles the issue of notability, we can discuss your other concerns about the other sources on the article's talk page if that is what you would like to do. Botterweg14 (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion of citation counts as a criterion for inclusion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

)
  • Comment: No, it doesn't meet NJournals. Clarivate now also reports an IF for journals included in ESCI, but ESCI does not convey notability as it is known to be less selective (even including some predatory journals). --Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think J. Milburn's point was about the magnitude of the impact factor, not about inclusion in ESCI. But once again, this is a moot point given the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy citation. Botterweg14 (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok; point taken about NJournals. My mistake. Changing to a weak keep. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain? I feel like I'm missing something here. Botterweg14 (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At present, the relevant text of WP:NJOURNALS is: 'For the purpose of C1, having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports usually qualifies (except for journals indexed in the non-selective Emerging Sources Citation Index)'. Maybe that's a good rule, maybe it isn't, but I was wrong when I said that this journal meets the criteria (of that not-quite-a-guideline!) on the grounds of having an impact factor. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you’re saying, but again I think the SEP and Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics sources (among others) establish C1 clearly enough that this is a moot point. Hence my surprise at your switch to a merely weak keep. Botterweg14 (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Considered to be important by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, meets criteria 1 of WP:NJOURNALS Mrfoogles (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, it's parent publisher's page is already long. Wouldn't be a good situation in which to merge. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: From the quote given, it's quite obvious that the Stanford Encyclopedia cite is just an in passing listing, without any in-depth discussion of the journal. No way is this a meet of NJournals criteria 1. --Randykitty (talk) 07:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Just to add related information (I'm not an involved Wikipedia person, so I won't try to provide judgements on keeping or not), SemPrag is likely not behind in progress of notability in comparison to the other three main journals in formal semantics. E.g.: WorldCat for SemPrag is on pace with Natural Language Semantics's WorldCat library inclusions. I'd also like to reiterate a previous comment above: In her discussion of the history of formal semantics, care is taken by Barbara Partee (well-known to be one of the most influential semanticists alive today) to situate the journal within her sub-discussion of the then-recent rise of semantics and pragmatics being considered a unified research area (p. 28). She does not try to discuss the journal and its status in full, but the intent seems clear. Anmkato (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What C1 says is "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." It does not require extended discussion in the aforementioned reliable sources. If it did, then inclusion in a selective indexing service would not on its own suffice to establish notability. In this case, what the SEP says is "The most important journals in the field are Linguistics and Philosophy, the Journal of Semantics, Natural Language Semantics, and Semantics and Pragmatics". So even putting aside the supplementary Martin Haspelmath and Colin Phillips references, this is top notch sourcing for the claim that this is not merely an influential journal in its subject area, but in fact one of the most influential. That clearly satisfies C1.
Of course, notable topics can sometimes be impossible to cover due to lack of appropriate sources, but that's a separate issue and I would be surprised if anyone felt it applied here. Botterweg14 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the difference between an in-passing mention in an encyclopedia article, no matter how laudatory, and a listing in a selective database is that the former is the opinion of one or two people, whereas the latter is the result of an in-depth examination by a committee of specialists. As an aside, while not ideal, I could live with a merge as suggested by Headbomb. --Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If that's what makes a difference, then your objection isn't with the absence of an extended discussion in the cited source, but rather that you don't regard the Stanford Encyclopedia as reliable. If that is the discussion you want to have, we can switch to having that discussion. Botterweg14 (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please note that the article does not qualify for a speedy keep; feel free to revise your !vote if you still believe it should be kept. Additional views about the proposed merger would also be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: seems to pass a straightforward reading of NJournals #1, which doesn't mention the depth of discussion required "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." There isn't much coverage though so a merge might be appropriate, but a separate merge discussion can be opened if this is kept anyway. Shapeyness (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ as a WP:G7 per author request in this discussion. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White House/Residents

White House/Residents (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)

Rejected speedy deletion. This article is a duplicate of List of presidents of the United States, except George Washington. I do not see this article being a suitable redirect for anything given its weird name. Is this the wrong namespace? -1ctinus📝🗨 12:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello 1ctinus. It is not a duplicate of the list, this is a subpage of White House containing the collective navboxes of the U.S. presidents and several First Ladies, It is added to the page White House in the navbox section in lieu of two collapsed navboxes which wouldn't format due to software restrictions. Maybe another name (White House/White House residents 1801-present), but this seemed descriptive enough. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, this page can now be speedy deleted, the underlying problem was solved at the Help desk. Thanks for your quick actions on behalf of the project! Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this article be moved to the template namespace, as per Help:template, A template is a Wikipedia page created to be included in other pages. This article does not seem like it was intended to ever be read alone. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1ctinus, it's not an article, just a collection of navboxes which is now solved by the help of the Help desk and present at the White House page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) 美しい歌 (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airalo

Airalo (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 that the sources establish notability. I am always most suspicious of articles with little or no content & citing beyond the raising of funds, which are almost invariably run of the mill stuff. TheLongTone (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda Tagar

Yehuda Tagar (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 without any demonstration of notability. It was tagged by Klbrain with a PROD in April 2024; the PROD was objected to with some discussion of improving it. Fast forward to August 2024 and nothing has changed. No proof of notability so nominated for deletion. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dude who is shaking Tagar's hand is the president of Israel
  • Delete. Regular professional at work. Nothing wrong with that but it does not make one encyclopedic. I have give or take 3 scientific publications and am definitely not notable! The primary is needed for a notable Yehuda Tagar who was a Mossad agent. Just died at the ripe age 100.[34] gidonb (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AsianWiki

AsianWiki (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 yet notable by WP:NWEB or WP:GNG, with no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. All I could find was some of their photos getting photo credits in film articles on some mainstream news websites [35], and some passing mentions of "...according to AsianWiki..." in a few film news articles [36]. SimilarWeb says they get 7 million hits a month, so per WP:INHERENTWEB we should expect more coverage of them in reliable sources, but I couldn't find it. Wikishovel (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Big site, sure, but it fails GNG. I was just considering to PROD this for its poor referencing and lack of notability when I refreshed the page and saw it had been AFD nommed. As a side not, the "alternative" section details an AsianWikis dot com, which seems to be unrelated to the bigger AsianWiki. Wikis plural happens to look the exact same as AirDates TV, another site the article creator made an article of (and which they have been inserting into random articles). Wuju Daisuki (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, thanks, I hadn't noticed that about AsianWikis dot com. It does indeed appear to be unrelated, and article creator has already used that site as a reference in an article [37] and a draft [38], along with the episodeairdate dot com one you mentioned. Wikishovel (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Here are some sources I found that provide one two sentences of coverage about the subject:
    1. Craddock, Jim, ed. (2015). Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever 2016. Farmington Hills, Michigan: Gale. p. 1871. ISBN 978-1-5730-2492-1. ISSN 1095-371X. Retrieved 2024-09-03 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes:

      Asian Media Wiki asianwiki.com/Main_Page

      Wikipedia style database of Asian film.

    2. Berra, John, ed. (2015). Directory of World Cinema. Japan 3. Bristol: Intellect Books. p. 215. ISBN 978-1-78320-403-8. Retrieved 2024-09-03 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes:

      Asian Media Wiki

      asianmediawiki.com

      Database devoted to Asian cinema, with up-to-date entries for the field of Japanese cinema. Very reliable, with festival dates, trailers and stills also provided.

    There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow AsianWiki to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbër Deliu

Arbër Deliu (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)

Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Played 74 minutes in Albania's highest league and several seasons in the semi-pro second tier. I found no sources that weren't databases or otherwise not significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ervin Hallunaj

AfDs for this article:
Ervin Hallunaj (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)

Previously deleted. Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. 2 matches in Albania's highest league and four seasons in the semi-pro second tier. I only found sources that were databases, primary, Wordpress blog sites or trivial such as this. Geschichte (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 14:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riverview Cantonment Board School

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

Other than some passing mentions, there is no significant coverage about this school. The school fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Most pages in fact, 50% of all pages about schools need to be deleted then, You delete pages with significant coverage as well, There are several sources talking about the instituition and about it. There are not just passing mentions, Not every instituition will get significant coverage, Yes, just because a school exists does not always mean, It should get it's own page. That is correct. However some schools get attention from Independent and Non-Independent Newspapers, News Portals and Websites, Those are the ones that I am creating now, I might have made mistakes in the past, However I now kind of understand. And, in my opinion, this system sucks, If a page gets deleted, and then the topic gets high attention and coverage from many sources, It will still be deleted because It has some similiarity of the page when It was previously deleted. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please provide significant coverage from reliable sources (see WP:SIGCOV). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all citations just mention the name, Some citations do provide some other information, that is why I put citations that just mentions the school next to name or other text. There are thousands of pages with citations that just mention the name and nothing else that remains and does not get nominated with, and those pages are seen by hundreds or even thousands, yet no nominations, Meanwhile pages like this one have information get nominated for deletion, despite giving more information than just the name. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Talk)

I will try to find more sources to the school BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Talk)

There are 7 references in the article. Reference 6 is written by a teacher of that school (WP:PRIMARY), and the remaining references are either passing mentions or directory listings. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it was written by a teacher, but the other citations are not just passing mentions. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the school does have more than just passing mentions and directory listings, there are also many pages about schools and educational institutions without any citations in Wikipedia for years without any risk of deletion, However there should be a template to indicate that the page has many issues, during that time, We shall attempt to find more sources. This school in Postogola Cantonment is kind of notable. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other articles exist doesn't mean they should exist. For many years, articles about high schools were routinely kept as long as the school could be proven to exist. That changed in 2017. The community is still working through the backlog of school articles to be deleted, as you can see if you show the AlertBot section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. A few are deleted nearly every day. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The sources are insignificant, consisting only of passing mentions and directory listings. The article fails to meet the criteria of WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 13:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only coverage independent of the school is a passing mention in a press release about a science workshop called MASLAB, which quotes an attendee from the school. The remaining refs are government sources: the school's website, the cantonment board, and the Directorate of Military Lands and Cantonment. Except for the school's history page, these are all just lists of schools and employees. Searches in English and Bengali found no independent significant coverage of the school. Not even "kind of notable". --Worldbruce (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Chakrasali

Ramesh Chakrasali (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)

Ostensibly well sourced, the references all fail to show any notability. Two are 404 errors, several are what he said, in which we have no interest, a couple are press releases. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete references are either info pages from his Engineering College, links to publications, or passing references in news articles about competitions/info days he coordinated. A passing search found no further news articles to support GNG. Spacepine (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As well as GNG we should also evaluate this article with respect to WP:PROF but the only criterion he has a chance of passing is #C6 and I don't think heading a small private undergraduate-only institution (that is, not a major research university), itself of unclear notability, is enough for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2024 (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! 08:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SDM College of Engineering and Technology

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

Not notable educational institution. I can find nothing except listings showing it exists. Fails WP:GNG. Existing references are useless to show WP:N 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:55, 28 August 2024 (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. Editors here have patiently explained, through words and a source table, while the sources are inadequate to establish notabilty as expected by Wikipedia newer standards of notability for sports figure (from 2022). The fact that there are other articles that are in equally bad shape is irrelevant to this discussion. You can always nominate them for an AFD discussion. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or go to WP:REFUND but know that you will need to submit it to WP:AFC for review. Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ota Kohoutek

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

Does not meet WP:GNG criteria. Lack of sources, no significant coverage. Insignificant footballer with only 12 starts in professional football, last being in May 2022, more than 2 years ago. Maybe one day he will restart his career, but WP:NOTJUSTYET. FromCzech (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were added references and sources to prove media coverage. At the end of the article there is statement about WP:STUB, which is perfectly sufficient and says that anyone can improve the site by expanding it. Pospeak (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability still not proven, sources still unsufficient. FromCzech (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has been proved by adding 3 references and 3 external links. That is more than many others footballer pages. Perfectly sufficient for stub. Pospeak (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FromCzech I saw you edited the page Ota Kohoutek recently. Am I to understand that you agree to keep it? Pospeak (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. FromCzech (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why are you revising an article that you think should be deleted? Isn't that pointless? Pospeak (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Did he year Brno a year ago? If his career was ongoing, I might have said draftifty. Geschichte (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean draftify per above? I would be OK with that, a reasonable compromise. Currently only three sources are used, one is about his father not him, one is about his debut, which doesn't demonstrate any notability, and one is about his club's success, not about him. FromCzech (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you feel the need to change someone's free opinion? This is a democratic discussion (which would not be necessary if you were not a deleting hardliner). Three references and five external links prefectly demonstrate notability. Pospeak (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not changing anyone's opinion, I'm just trying to spark a discussion because the post was unclear. It's the quality of the sources that matters, not the quantity. And that was nowhere near achieved in this case, as I analyze above. FromCzech (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is unclear about the keep statement? As I wrote earlier, 8 sources (containing one full-length interview) is more than many others footballer pages have. Perfectly sufficient for stub. Pospeak (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only 3 sources (5 are external links/databases). Interview does not demonstrate notability. This article cannot be compared with others, where sources proving notability may exist but they are just not used, while here there are none such sources. If you know about a page, where you doubt the existence of significant coverage, you can nominate it for deletion, and do not use it to defend existence of this one.
    I am asking user GiantSnowman, who also mentioned "delete", to elaborate on "no evidence of notability". The author of this article is not interested in hearing it from me. FromCzech (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    External links are irrelevant - what we need are detailed, significant in-line references. Do we have that here? GiantSnowman 14:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that you don't know much about the Czech media, so I'll explain it to you. Znoj-tyden.cz is a weekly newspaper from the Znojmo District with more than 20 years of tradition. It is the most read newspapers in the region with almost 6,000 followers on Facebook. More than three and a half million people visit Denik.cz for news every month and with 1.8 million readers, it is the most read printed newspaper in the Czech Republic. Again, these references are perfectly sufficient for stub and demonstrate notability, because what else should demonstrate it more than an interview in the most widely read newspaper in the country? If you disagree with this, then name me which sources you think are notable. And consider that this is a player from a minor league team, so he's unlikely to get into Sports Illustrated or L'Équipe like the vast majority of players. Pospeak (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Znojemský deník is a branch of Deník.cz of local importance. Similarly, Znoj-tyden is also only a local media. All the sources used, apart from the databases, write about an 18-year-old boy who scored a goal on his professional debut, which is certainly a grateful topic for club pages and local media, but does nothing to support what makes this boy so significant that he deserves his own page in the encyclopedia. Their content is, first of all, one event, not the career and life of the person in question, primarily because his career and life are still ahead of him. But how few games and minutes he's played, and that he hasn't played in a professional competition since September 2022, speaks loudly against his importance. FromCzech (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your problem is that you are trashing other people's resources, while the pages you created have the same ones. Yes, this is how denik.cz works, that it has local editors, but that does not change the fact that it is an important source that is widely cited. Pospeak (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just clarifying the mystification about the intraregional impact of these media. Otherwise, I have no problem with their reliability. If these sources supported the significance of the player, it would be fine, but they only write about his debut. FromCzech (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that he made his debut at such a young age and scored a goal is significant in itself, which is why these articles were written about him. Deník.cz is a medium whose reach in the sports section is nationwide, and I emphasize again that articles from its regional editorial offices are widely cited. Pospeak (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the locality of the coverage has no relevance to the subjects notability. A proposal to reject local sources from showing a subjects notability was last rejected in 2018. Alvaldi (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And the recently added iDNES.cz does not write about him, it is only a passing mention. FromCzech (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not mean that this resource cannot be used. If only articles about players were used, then you have to delete half of the articles. Pospeak (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be used, but is irrelevant to the notability discussion. That's all. FromCzech (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability discussion is supported by 8 additional references and 3 external links, which is clearly more than many other sites, even those created by you. That's all. Pospeak (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional references were added to increase notability, articles from the most widespread newspapers in the Czech Republic. Will I get a "keep" statement from you now? Pospeak (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @21.Andromedae: Can you elaborate more on your point? FromCzech (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus. It would help to see a source review, ideally in a table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Alvaldi
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.oefb.at/Profile/Spieler/1168966 No Austrian Football Association Yes No List of stats ✘ No
https://www.livesport.cz/hrac/kohoutek-ota/CzW5lcRP/ ? Yes Probably No List of stats ✘ No
https://znojemsky.denik.cz/fotbal-druha-liga/kohoutek-rozjasal-brno-i-otce-prijemny-pocit-reagoval-dlouholety-sef-znojma-2021.html Yes Newspaper Yes Probably ? Is from 22 November 2021, covers his first match and is partly behind paywall. ? Unknown
https://www.fczbrno.cz/clanek.asp?id=VIDEO-Stal-jsem-na-dobrem-miste-v-dobry-cas-usmival-se-Kohoutek-7843 No Club website Yes Probably No Is from 22 November 2021, covers his first match. ✘ No
https://www.msfl.cz/hrac/ota-kohoutek No League website Yes Probably No List of stats ✘ No
https://www.idnes.cz/fotbal/domaci-souteze/fotbal-prostejov-druha-liga-start-sezony.A230302_154300_fot_dsouteze_ald Yes Newspaper Yes Probably No Mentions him once in references on him being loaned. ✘ No
https://www.fotbal.cz/repre/hrac/hraci/16333344 No Football Association of the Czech Republic Yes Probably No List of stats ✘ No
http://znoj-tyden.cz/sport/ota-kohoutek-jeste-dva-dny-potom-jsem-mel-husinu/ Yes Newspaper Yes Probably No Is from 5 December 2021 and is mostly interview with a little bit of prose regarding his debut less than two weeks before. ✘ No
https://www.fczbrno.cz/zapas.asp?ID=Zbrojovka-s-jistotou-postupu-v-kapse-prehrala-doma-Trinec-4524 No Club website Yes Probably No Doesn't mention him ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
This fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV, WP:SUSTAINED or otherwise. Alvaldi (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is non-independent on football association and league sites? Are they the player's employer? I can admit that the problem may be with the club sites, although they are also quite commonly used as a resource. The fact that the articles appeared in previous years does not mean that they do not meet significant coverage. As I've written before, these articles were created by a player becoming interesting by scoring a goal on his league debut. So it wasn't just the first match. If he hadn't scored a goal, nobody would have written about him or interviewed him. Evaluating signaficant coverage for sources that are statistics is nonsense. These are there as support, although (again) they are national association and league profile pages (ie resources with a national reach). In conclusion, I would add that there is also a yellow evaluation color for partially meet. By your standards, half of Wikipedia should disappear. Pospeak (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the association and league are regarded on the same level as the employer because they all have a similar vested interest in promoting "their" players. They are not unreliable per se, so they can be used (i.e. not be thrown out/"disappear"), but not independent either. Geschichte (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the argument of promoting "their" players (who are not in any employment relationship with the association or league) is exaggerated. We can say ad absurdum that the newspaper's activity is motivated by self-promotion with the help of readership, which brings profit from web advertising. Pospeak (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SPORTBASIC, listings in database sources does not go towards establishing notability and neither do sources from team sites and governing sports bodies. My point with the dates on the non-database sources is that even if they were significant, which they ain't, they would fail WP:SUSTAINED as a brief bursts of news coverage several years ago regarding a players debut with no continuing coverage indicates that the player just isn't notable. Alvaldi (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote earlier, sources that are statistics are listed as support. We can easily move them to external sources. Newer references from 2022 and 2023 have been added to support notability. Pospeak (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, there is nothing wrong with having database sources in articles to support statements within the article (for example, that the subject scored x many goals during a specific season). However, they do not count towards establishing that the player is notable. For this article to be kept, it has to been shown that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (no team or league websites, no quotes from coaches or teammates etc.) over a sufficiently significant period of time. Brief burst of articles regarding his debut over a span of few days or trivial mentions is not enough. Alvaldi (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I leave out the team, league and association pages, there are still 4 newspaper articles (from 2021-2023). I note that these media have a nationwide reach. The articles are not only about his debut, but also the following events in his career. I would encourage all reviewers to look at other players' sites that are created and the number and quality of resources. Then you will find that the discussion about this player is pointless. Pospeak (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those newspaper sources [39][40] trivial mention him once each. The other two mention him only in relation of one event (his debut) and are written in a span of few days. That simply is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree on what is notable. This waste of resources, in the context of other footballers' sites, is undignified. First of all, it is allegedly a small number of sources, then their reach is questioned (without the authors knowing a single Czech medium), and finally, the problem is that they were published a short time after each other. It is a clear attempt to delete this article regardless of its constant improvement. Pospeak (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with having database sources in articles to support statements within the article (for example, that the subject scored x many goals during a specific season). However, they do not count towards establishing that the player is notable. – Exactly! That's why I've been replacing them with closest reliable sources I could find, especially regarding the footballer's debut and first goal. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITF Women's Circuit UBS Thurgau

ITF Women's Circuit UBS Thurgau (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)

A very small tournament that seems to get no third party coverage. Even a plain google search just reveals primary sources. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 28 August 2024 (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 Chandigarh#History. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Chandigarh

History of Chandigarh (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 incomplete article is basically WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that theorizes a connection between modern Chandigarh and ancient Indian civilizations. ("The land...was probably a part of the Kuru Kingdom...") It existed for many years as a redirect, but was recently reverted. The article fails WP:GNG, both on inadequate sourcing and on WP:NOT, so a delete would be appropriate, but restoring a stable redirect to Chandigarh#History established through AfD consensus would be acceptable too. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for this Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 28 August 2024 (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 Czech Republic–Denmark relations. I see a rough consensus to Redirect this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Denmark, Prague

Embassy of Denmark, Prague (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)

A 1 line article which merely confirms it exists. No third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Czech Republic-Denmark relations as this embassy is non-notable and this shouldn't be given a separate article in the first place. Galaxybeing (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Bahmani

Habib Bahmani (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, I googled him and didn't find much except few videos and few other things in social media. I also think the page is created by himself. trying to make a resume for himself. the account is banned now. I don't think just coaching a team is enough to make him notable. the article says he won a medal at World Cup (which I can't confirm) but even if that's correct, World Cup is a secondary tournament after the World Championship. Sports2021 (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 28 August 2024 (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LM358

LM358 (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)

A common commercial op amp. In my opinion it does not meet the Notability criteria to warrant its own article. Did not find sufficient independent coverage. It is mentioned but not in depth. As opposed to the 741, which has evident historical significance, the LM358 is not particularly special or impactful in electronics literature. Alan Islas (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue with deleting LM358 is that it's a widespread, industry-standard "jellybean" part - they are everywhere, source-able from multiple manufacturers, used in places ranging from audio applications (now obsolete?) but also motion and light sensors, power supplies etc. Perhaps it's so common that it's invisible!
Even the reference on List of LM-series integrated circuits states "Several generations of pin-compatible descendants of the original parts have since become de facto standard electronic components."
I don't know if there's enough "real" sources available to keep this, but as ICs go there's more in this world than, say, 68030s...
Some options might be to expand this article - talking about its ubiquity rather than its characteristics perhaps - or else merge this in Operational amplifier (a new category of "other historically significant opamps"?), or spin it into a general article of historically significant opamps.
Note that there is also the LM324, a quad-channel op-amp in a similar category, and the LM321 (single-channel version). Neither of these have an article, though. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!
As another user said, this is an industry standard since the 20th century.
Its worthy of a wikipedia page, but needs a bit of work. 176.12.177.191 (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: the keep arguments are not policy based, but seem much stronger as a merge argument. Is there a valid merge target? Are there sources that would indicate an article of sufficient length to be useful can be reliably sourced?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
Yeah the 741 is more notable. But this is a pretty mainstream component. I've added a short bit about the early history of the device. It would be good to have some coverage of the variants, and dates when different manufactureers announced there version. It would take considerable effort to find the trade journals, but I'm sure the coverage is there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:01, 29 August 2024 (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. Withdrawing, self-assessment snow keep (non-admin closure) IgelRM (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liberate Hong Kong

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

I realize this is controversial, but the game doesn't appear to have sufficient independent notability and the primary topic for title would be Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our times. IgelRM (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2024 (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala State Transport Employees Front

Kerala State Transport Employees Front (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 criteria laid down at WP:ORGCRITE. Lacks in-depth coverage, WP:CORPDEPTH. Run-of-the-mill routine news by WP:NEWSORGINDIA are inadequate. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:33, 28 August 2024 (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Gazetted Officers' Association

Kerala Gazetted Officers' Association (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 criteria laid down at WP:ORGCRITE. Lacks in-depth coverage, WP:CORPDEPTH. Run-of-the-mill routine news by WP:NEWSORGINDIA are inadequate. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:32, 28 August 2024 (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! 05:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Seidel

Peter Seidel (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)

Came across this article while looking at orphans. No significant independent coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPERSON. Newspapers.com, ProQuest, and Google came up and the best were interviews and a single book review in a journal here}. The page was created a long time ago by the author himself. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grove Street Games

Grove Street Games (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)

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NCORP, only local coverage or related to Rockstar. Maybe redirect to List of video games published by Rockstar Games? IgelRM (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Also, consider the appropriateness of a Redirect to List of video games published by Rockstar Games (where the subject is mentioned) as suggested by the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the redirect: I don't think that's terribly helpful. That article will show up in a search, if someone looks for "Gove Street Games". But I think someone who gets directly linked to that article, having expected an article on Gove Street Games, will be very confused. I'd !vote for deletion of it if it were at RFD on WP:ASTONISH grounds. -- asilvering (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2024 (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godenu

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Some of the sources linked in the article (like the first and third) don't even mention "Godenu". The fourth source mentions Godenu only once, as the "Gbi-Godenu Volta Region IFAD/SCIMP Project", seemingly a different thing. The second source does mention Godenu, but it's pretty brief. Other sources linked aren't reliable or aren't independent. I can find mentions of Godenu, like in this article, but that's it. toweli (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.royalhouseofgodenu.org/Godenu/ https://www.gbiviwo.com/gbi-godenu-chiefs-queens https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/V-R-Ensure-proper-training-for-recruits-to-save-lives-ndash-Gbi-Godenu-divisional-chief-1836368 https://gna.org.gh/2023/08/clashes-between-gbi-godenu-residents-and-police-leave-two-dead-one-injured/ http://1900.ethnia.org/polity.php?ASK_CODE=GHTF&ASK_YY=1945&ASK_MM=04&ASK_DD=15&SL=en[] https://ghanaiantimes.com.gh/2-die-1-injured-12-arrested-following-clashes-between-police-residents-in-hohoe/ Djflem (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Participants, plesase don't dump a bunch of bare URLS in a discussion with no explanation or sense of priority. Use your experience and knowledge and highlight 3 or 4 of the best secondary source in the form of diffs, please. You all know how to do this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 28 August 2024 (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/2024_August_28&oldid=1244177324"