Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 22	October 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Women's long jump. Star Mississippi 01:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lyudmila Borsuk

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

Article does not meet WP:NSPORT or WP:NPF Aydoh8 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Belarus. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect—suggest redirecting to Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Women's long jump, but to an anchor added as entry 23 in the first table. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Early close under the snowball clause. – Joe (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2016 in Kuwait

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

Article does not cite any sources and lists no events Aydoh8 (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East and Kuwait. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's rather odd to think that nothing happened in the country for the whole of the year. A Newspapers.com search for Kuwait in 2016 returns about 15,000 hits. BD2412 T 00:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added two events, and more could be added. Jfire (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added three more. BD2412 T 05:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has been expanded and referenced. Good work! Tails Wx 19:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see "Emir Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah dissolved the Kuwait government and set new elections." So yeah, something important in that country's history happened that year. Dream Focus 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has been cleaned up and covers a valid subject. TheBritinator (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. per WP:SKCRIT#1. No policy-based reason for deletion was advanced. – Joe (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sthenias javanicus

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

Article has very little information, may not meet notability requirements Aydoh8 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One hit in Gbooks [1], looks trivial. I can't find anything in jstor or Gscholar. I wonder if it's known under a different name. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More hits on Sthenias (Sthenias) javanicus, but I still can't find much. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per longstanding consensus (WP:NSPECIES), individual species are invariably notable. Jfire (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Accepted species, no confusion about holotype or synonyms; original description already linked, present in the relevant databases [2][3]. Please have a look at the responses to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clivina jodasi and desist from any more of these nominations. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Article has very little information" is not a reason to delete one. The species is accepted with no confusion about holotype or synonyms, as mentioned above by Elmidae. Mooonswimmer 14:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I'm accepting the unanimous position here since high schools are often notable, although I note there isn't much mention about what sources support this specific school's notability. RL0919 (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Northside School of Innovation, Technology, and Entrepreneurship

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

A bunch of out-of-date, unsourced, and excessively detailed information about a high school (program?) that doesn't appear to have any particular external coverage.

Either Northside Independent School District or Oliver Wendell Holmes High School could be a redirect target, but I don't know which would be preferred. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Texas. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Redirect: Likely notable, redirect to Northside School of Innovation, Technology, and Entrepreneurship as it pass WP:GNG as per WP:BEFORE but current version of article needs huge cleanup. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 23:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been moved to Northside School of Innovation, Technology, and Entrepreneurship 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The article is a c-class article, but it is almost entirely unreferenced and will need a complete rewrite. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've Stub-ified it for now. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but SEVERE trimming—This article needs editing down to supported and verifiable information. ANY Keep action should come with a Major trimming of content. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 01:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looking at the page now, it has been stub-ified. That should make a lot of the previous !voters happy. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 17:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soho Center

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and organization-specific notability policies as none (or too few) of the references meet all 3 of the golden rule criteria. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, New York, and Virginia. UtherSRG (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. As an organisation, its a 50 year old charity and such there is likely to be more coverage available. scope_creep^Talk 17:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NGO Mach61 (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any significant coverage. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 17:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Hüseyin Can

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

There are barely any sources on the Internet, and the only source here is not independent from the subject. This screams not WP:N. Aintabli (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a bad sign that there doesn't even seem to be an article in Turkish for them. If there are insufficient sources to support an article about a person in their native language, it's doubtful we'll be able to do any better. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Most sources provided do not contribute to notability due to being self-published, etc. Alternative indicators such as number of downloads are not accepted for establishing notability under our guidelines. RL0919 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Federici

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

No independent, reliable and significant sources exist in the article nor found in Google, Archive.org library, Google Scholar, jstor, Newspapers.com, ebsco, or proquest. So does not meet WP:NBASIC or WP:ANYBIO at this time (their committee membership by itself won't meet ANYBIO#1 and their software contributions noted in the article don't meet ANYBIO#2.) Skynxnex (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, Medicine, Computing, Italy, and Switzerland. Skynxnex (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recently reviewed the article and found that all the sources are available on Google, Google News, Google Scholar, and Archive.org. The open-source contributions can be found on GitHub and in the package registries. I disagree about ANYBIO#1 and ANYBIO#2. Regarding #2 for example, the Bitcoin network is valued hundreds of billions; a bug in the address hashing of Bitcoin Core may have caused millions in assets to be lost forever. Unaveraged (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Forbes is a contributor piece so not a RS, the rest are red per sourcebot. I can't find any we can use. 4 or 5 hits in Gnews, don't appear RS or trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are in fact about a soccer player, a church thing and other non-related people with the same name. No sourcing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely baffled by the apparent bias against pages related to IT (and blockchain in particular) projects and personalities I'm experiencing on Wikipedia. I began contributing specifically due to the industry's underrepresentation (and occasional misrepresentation) I noticed here. However, all the related pages I've created or contributed to so far, such as those about Aave — a leading open-source DeFi platform with over 8 billion in assets deposited as of writing — and its founder Stani Kulechov — a prominent contributor in the blockchain domain — are consistently targeted and eventually deleted. Both of those were speedily deleted overnight, denying me even the opportunity to save my work. Jean-Philippe Aumasson's page — a renowned cryptographer, father of BLAKE3 — also recently got deleted. Now it's happening again with this page; at least we have the opportunity for a discussion this time (also, why request deletions instead of improvements?). Glancing at the pages created by you and other editors involved (as well as many others I see on Wikipedia), I, for example, find ones like Raina Huang (a competitive eater(?)), and Belgh Brasse (from Oaktree b), or Banana Slug String Band and The Consuming Fire (from Skynxnex). These seem to have even fewer independent sources and arguably less societal or scientific relevance?

Information's perceived importance is subjective and influenced by individual perspectives and the fields or industries they belong to. While the blockchain sector might have reputation issues, it doesn't mean everything and everyone is fraudulent. Many individuals and entities contribute valuable work, scientific research, and genuine projects with a significant impact. However, it seems that industry news platforms, podcasts, open-source work and contributions, and software adoption/usage aren't given due consideration here, even though they serve as foundational references in the sector.

Moreover, I suspect your search results may also be location-biased. For instance, as I mentioned earlier, when I search on Google, I easily find in the news the sources cited, such as Inside Paradeplatz, SEBA, and CMTA, all of which are prominent authorities in Switzerland, as well as podcasts and interviews. Unaveraged (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have reliable sourcing for them. Belgh Brasse is covered in a published book on beer and there are articles in reputable newspapers for Raina. This, not so much. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Societal relevance is a moot point, as I've said before, we have everything from cat memes to concentration camps. Proper sourcing, you can have an article on anything. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unaveraged If you have found additional sources and coverage, please share them here or in the article. Improving an article during AFD is a good way to help form consensus for keep. The sources in the article, and that I could find, do not meet WP:RS for WP:N, even within the tech world. There just barely articles about the subject that I can find. Of the 9 sources in the page just before the AFD, [4], I'll quickly say why I think they don't help toward notability (some of them definitely can be used as sources for information but not for notability):

Co-author on an academic paper; if widely cited, or part of a larger pattern of papers, yes. But not in this case.
Inside Paradeplatz, probably the best source but still only a passing mention
Forbes seems to have no mention of the subject just a bank he worked for
Twitter Space, I'm not sure how much we count an Arbitrum interview for notability but interviews in general are not weighted very much for any subject
GitHub profile, could be used per WP:SELFPUBLISHED for information but since anyone can can have one, not a sign of notability
crates profile, same as above
One of ~20 contributors to a point release with no information why that's notable, so again, potentially for information but not notability
A GitHub issue, so same as three above

Some of the above could be things that might make someone notable in the Wikiedia-sense, if other people write about them and those topics. That doesn't seem to be happening even within the niche/technical space. So, find sources talking about/covering Federici (the more well-known the better) and please let us know.

As for why AFD instead of improvement, this article was declined at WP:AFC twice and tagged with various improvement tags over the past couple of months and you moved it into mainspace almost four months ago. I generally fall on keeping articles (and I have voted !keep in a number of marginal-ish tech topics if memory serves) at AFD whenever I think there's a realistic change a topic might be notable.

(What articles other contributors have or have not made isn't really the issue here, see WP:OTHERSTUFF (but for the two creations of mine you mentioned, I hadn't revisited them in awhile so I was able to find and add more sources discussion/reviewing their respective topics). Although I didn't participate in the Jean-Philippe Aumasson discussion, looking now I probably would have !voted as a weak keep given he is an author of multiple respected books [5], has a decent number of papers and citations [6] (compared to Federici; which isn't meant as any sort of slight against Federici). Aumasson is generally well-regarded and known within the community, and etc. It has has been draftified after an undeletion request and is at Draft:Jean-Philippe Aumasson and available for improvement and could be moved back to article space if notability can be shown and more sources added.)

It'd be great if there are more sources to be found and we can keep this article; I just can't find any. Skynxnex (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the frustration I expressed in my previous post regarding my experience and also for going off-topic by referencing and comparing other pages.

I was generally referring to all the pages I mentioned, believing they should all deserve to be part of Wikipedia. Anyway, I found some additional resources that might help save at least this one. For instance, a Webinar they produced with the University of Milan and CONSOB (the Italian banking authority), curated by a journalist from IlSole24Ore: link. The recording of an event they moderated for Cointelegraph: link, and an interview by Tatiana Koffman: link.

I'd also like to point out, regarding GitHub and Cargo's profiles, that sure I understand they are generally considered WP:SELFPUBLISHED since anyone can create them. However, the actual appreciation and use by the community can't. The GitHub profile has published open-source work with over 700 stars, about 200 forks, and the libraries published in Cargo have over 60,000 downloads. These statistics only refer to their public work there. Unaveraged (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Nelson Riddle#Later years. RL0919 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Riddle Conducts The 101 Strings

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, could find no reviews or any other content during a thorough search. Even the Riddle biography listed only gives three sentences to describe the album. As for the liner notes, this isn't an independent source. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 21:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 21:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Nelson Riddle Conducts The 101 Strings” is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia for several reasons. First, it represented the return to recording industry after a two-year hiatus by Nelson Riddle, one of the most significant American arrangers, composers, bandleaders, and orchestrators of the Twentieth Century, in a European release that was a departure from his career that had been based in Los Angeles, California, most notably with Capitol Records. Second, the recording is a coming together of two artists notable in their own right—Riddle, and The 101 Strings Orchestra, the highly successful easy listening symphonic organization that released more than 150 albums in its three decades of existence. Third, the popularity of and demand for the recording is reflected in the fact that it was reissued on vinyl disc on three subsequent occasions, and was later issued in compact disc format. Fourth, the enduring popularity of the recording over a half century is evident from the fact that its songs are currently available for download from Amazon Music, Apple Music, and Spotify. Johnwellsking (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of these points are based on Wikipedia's general or album-specific notability guideline. I will respond to them here: 1) Nelson Riddpe is highly notable, but not everything associated with him is; 2) again, notability is not inherited: this has nothing to do with the album notability guideline. Incidentally, it's interesting to see how most of the albums by the 101 strings don't have articles? 3) just because an album was rereleased that doesn't make it notable, again this isn't based on the album notability guideline; 4) the existence of a song on streaming services does not make it notable. There are over five million albums on Spotify and we have 400,000 album articles. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 11:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nelson Riddle. Really just a mention there with the Levinson citation would be adequate. --Michig (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't find any reviews. Checked out the three 1970 NME's online. A part merge to Nelson Riddle#Later Years seems appropriate, specifically the Origin paragraph and Levinson review. Rupples (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content worth saving to Nelson Riddle. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 17:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Air Force Activity 1

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. A search shows that all potential sources are merely one or two paragraph announcements of the mixtape; I can't find any significant coverage such as a review. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 21:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 21:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fader is a green link per sourcebot. This [7], brief but helps. The Hyperbeast is a yellow per sourcebot; I think we have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've got access to that source and it looks good. However I still think that these one or two paragraph announcements (Pitchfork is one, Hypebeast is two) don't constitute significant coverage. I've had a look at WP:NALBUM and I'm not sure if the Fader source is good for establishing notability as part of it is the artist talking about the mixtape, which makes the source at least partially primary. Together this is definitely borderline. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 11:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mukuru Service

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 21:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move to draft instead till ready for mainspace.-- Tumbuka Arch^★_★^★ 21:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa, Asia, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References compared to WP:SIRS do not hold up. For instance, the Africa.com article has a byline of "editor" and is written like a press release so likely churnalism. The News 24 reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There is also a press release cited and other references which are unreliable or otherwise brief mentions or routine announcements. While moving to draft would be a good WP:ATD, I don't think this would be notable anytime in the near future. The company is almost 20 years old and if it hasn't obtained notability through significant coverage by this point I do not think it is likely to do so in the next 6 months. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet either WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. The sources are mostly reposts of press releases. - MrOllie (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons aforementioned, draftify isn't a suitable option here more time in the draft space isn't going to cause secondary sources to write articles. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 17:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Carter (diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I don't believe the routine coverage here passes WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Estonia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO for lack of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Ward (diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Africa, United Kingdom, and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO for lack of significant coverage. Article looks like a resume.LibStar (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiant (company)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. Sources in article fail to provide sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. GNews search shows nothing better. I did remove some sections I thought weren't needed, along with their references, but I don't believe they satisfy the notability criteria. They're either written by the CEO, or a single short review. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lewington (diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References do not support notability. Llajwa (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, United Kingdom, and Ecuador. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO for lack of significant coverage. Coverage is routine. LibStar (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Whiteside

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References do not support notability, although in this case there may be more references to be found. Llajwa (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NEXIST. Curbon7 (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Moldova, United Kingdom, and Ecuador. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best sources I could find were a listing of the ambassadors to Moldova (https://regatulunit.mfa.gov.md/en/content/history-embassy) and a short interview by what looks like a Moldovan tourism company (https://www.welcome-moldova.com/articles/british_ambassador.shtml), but no significant coverage per WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO for lack of significant coverage. Danny's search shows this is the case. LibStar (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Campbell (diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I believe the fairly routine coverage fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Nicaragua. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've updated and added some references just now. I'd say that the spread of sources is enough to show significant coverage, and are non-trivial enough to show notability. Additionally, on a non-policy point I personally don't think it serves Wikipedia to delete the article of a three-time ambassador. Gazamp (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Article sources are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE showed mentions, but nothing SIGCOV about the subject that is from an WP:IS.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Interview, not WP:IS	1. "Departing British ambassadors reflect on four-year tenure in Costa Rica". The Tico Times. 23 May 2015. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
from employer, not WP:IS	2. ^ "Change of Ambassador to the Republic of Ecuador - November 2020". GOV.UK. Retrieved 2 January 2020.
Named in list, no SIGCOV	3. ^ Jump up to:a b "El Gobierno Nacional pagó USD 285 millones a proveedores del Estado – Secretaría General de Comunicación de la Presidencia". www.comunicacion.gob.ec. Retrieved 14 October 2020.
from employer, not WP:IS	4. ^ "Change of Her Majesty's Ambassador to the Dominican Republic". WiredGov. 21 April 2015. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
from employer, not WP:IS	5. ^ Jump up to:a b "Chris Campbell - GOV.UK". www.gov.uk. Retrieved 2 January 2020.
Interview, not WP:IS	6. ^ Jump up to:a b c Adewunmi, Bim (3 July 2011). "A very diplomatic marriage". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2 January 2020.
Government notice about his spouse, name drop for subject, not SIGCOV	7. ^ "Appointment: Ambassador to Costa Rica and Non Resident Ambassador to Nicaragua". The Times. 25 June 2011. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 2 January 2020.
Interview, not WP:IS	8. ^ Dolores Vicioso (4 February 2020). "Ambassador Chris Campbell says Brexit opens opportunities for UK and DR". DR1.com. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
Interview, not WP:IS	9. ^ "Interview with Chris Campbell, HM Ambassador to Ecuador". LatAm Investor. 7 January 2021. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
Interview, not WP:IS	10. ^ "Special report: Ecuador is back on the map" (PDF). British Ecuadorian Society. LatAm Investor. pp. 32–33. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
Namedrop, no SIGCOV	11. ^ "UK Foreign Office Eases Travel Warnings for Ecuador". Northern Ireland Travel News. 11 July 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
Namedrop, no SIGCOV	12. ^ Chris Moss (22 September 2021). "It is beginning to feel like we may never visit Latin America again". The Telegraph. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
Namedrop, no SIGCOV	13. ^ "Live updates: Charles back in London as king; queen mourned". The San Diego Union-Tribune. 9 September 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2023.

Nothing meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from an independent source. // Timothy :: talk 09:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Referenced, notable, no reason to delete it. it should not have been nominated for deletion. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notable under which notability criteria exactly? Uhooep (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it has good sources and he is notable as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 13+ sources and they are reliable. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Fisher (diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Moldova, United Kingdom, Dominican Republic, and Haiti. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO for lack of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Radio of Michigan

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

Subject does not meet either the WP:GNG or WP:NCORP as a radio broadcaster. Let'srun (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, Companies, and Michigan. Let'srun (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One-market radio broadcaster does not meet WP:CORP. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Defunct small-market broadcaster; all of its properties went to separate parties so there's nowhere to logically redirect to. Nate • (chatter) 21:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep I believe this article ( Northern Radio of Michigan Spins Three FMs to Separate Owners ) qualifies as a significant reliable secondary source. If not, I may change my mind. If you disagree, please explain why. --Eastview2018 (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though citing them is fine for honors, I generally don't really find state broadcasting associations to be a proper source for station sales and format changes as they're an advocate for the stations they represent and don't have a neutral interest; just my view though, someone may disagree with me. Nate • (chatter) 16:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per most everyone else. I can't exactly say it's impossible that a one-market radio station group can meet WP:CORP, but I don't think there's anything that indicates that's the case here. (It would be hard to argue that the Michigan Association of Broadcasters is an independent source for any broadcast entity in the state, so their article probably counts zero toward establishing notability.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Draft:Saindhav already exists and is in better condition. Upon request, content from this page can be undeleted and merged with Draft:Saindhav. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saindhav

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

Article does not meet WP:NFF, need to show that production itself is notable. Draft already exists, need to go through AFD at this point. Ravensfire (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Ravensfire (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: There are sufficient sources available about the film, so it would be more beneficial to move it to draftspace for further improvement rather than deleting it. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major film with a lot of notable, well-known actors and significant independent coverage in the references. Llajwa (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's the typical pre-release publicity, but where the significant coverage of the production? It's not in the article. This needs time in draft space to get that developed or wait for the release. Since I nominated the article to be deleted/draftified, here's the total edits made - [8]. That's not showing any development is happening. Ravensfire (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails GNG and NFF. Seeing a lot of pre publicity, nothing that is non-promo WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS. Above responses are covered by WP:NOTINHERITED. Draft already exists and production itself is not notable. // Timothy :: talk 10:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep development details and reference added . AShiv1212 (talk) 3:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Draftify Merge this with Draft:Saindhav since it is better expanded than that one. DareshMohan (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ delete. Making this close based based on the guidelines for disambiguation pages, despite the "delete" and "keep" sides being roughly divided numerically.

Both of the Windows related entries are topics not mentioned in the linked articles, while there seems to be a consensus that the Klingon grammar entry is trivial. The WP:DISAMBIG guideline says a disambiguation page is needed when

"there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead."

That standard is not met here.

The Manual of Style guideline page on disambiguation says at MOS:DABMENTION:

"If the topic is not mentioned in the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic."

This clearly indicates that disambiguation pages should help to guide readers to the specific article where the topic is covered. There is longstanding practice that definitions of abbreviations without discussion are outside Wikipedia's scope, although they may be within the scope of Wiktionary. The guideline is therefore clearly in support of deletion and I cannot see that the "keep" side have made a convincing argument to ignore that. While pointing to the usefulness is somewhat relevant, they fail to address the concern that the entries are outside Wikipedia's scope. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Winad

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

"Winad" is not mentioned at either entry: this page and the linked redirect Winad (disambiguation) should both be deleted. PROD declined by @Voice of Clam: "has previously been discussed at RfD". Pinging @Pppery: who seconded the PROD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, per nom. If this is anything more than occasional and undocumented IT shorthand, that must be demonstrated. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to find more entries and added one. It is an unlikely search term, though not impossible - it may be worth a redirect to Klingon grammar. The initial two entries are invalid though. Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find these disambiguation pages extremely helpful - Idk about the klingon example, but the other two seem like jargon you might well find and try to identify on our site - even if the relevant articles don't mention the abbreviation / jargon WINAD. Llajwa (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Llajwa's reasoning.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find such dab pages very helpful for acronyms where the meaning can be very context dependent. Wikipedia:Disambiguations are cheap --DannyS712 (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Llajwa, A. B. and DannyS712, I see what you mean, but there is no mention of 'Winad' at these pages, so it can be frustrating for readers, as dabs are essentially indexes of articles and mentions within articles. This might be useful more for Wiktionary? What do you think? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DABMENTION exists for a reason. We shouldn't be speculating on what people may want without support from it in the articles themselves. Klingon grammar is a triviality not deserving a redirect, compare Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 12#Ouvrîmes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Klingon Wiktionary as a completely obvious AtD. Otherwise Delete per WP:DABMENTION, it doesn't DAB and none of the Keep votes explain how this meets DAB or is useful for navigation in anyway. // Timothy :: talk 10:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 KJIR. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Believers Broadcasting Corporation

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

Unable to find any sources for this radio station owner, and as such this fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Article survived a 2005 AfD but notability standards have changed significantly since. Let'srun (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Companies, and Illinois. Let'srun (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KJIR, the company's remaining property. Nate • (chatter) 19:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for 'soft' deletion/redirection due to previously declined speedy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KJIR per previous comment. These two entities seem to be basically one and the same at this point; the KJIR article can also mention the other stations which its corporate owner previous owned and sold. Llajwa (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KJIR - no need for 2 articles.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KJIR: per everyone else. There is no separate notability from that station at this point, not that the company ever really had its own notability to start with (one or two-market station groups are a tall order with regards to meeting WP:CORP or GNG). For the record (as the usual means of displaying past nominations can't pick it up), the 2005 AfD came when the article was titled Believers Broadcasting Company (and in error, as a commenter there noted at the time). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Trebor

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

Non-notable minor actor. Natg 19 (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. Natg 19 (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. ~~Might~~ meets WP:NACTOR for some roles played in notable films.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC) (Edited after seeing sources presented by Moonswimmer, below)[reply]
Keep. Significant roles in Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, Out of the Darkness, 52 Pick-Up and My Demon Lover are good for NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, there's this [9], not the most flattering role, but there seems to be some indication of notability. Still need sourcing that talks about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve or draftify. He has been in so many films, some of them non-minor roles, as well as a one-man show that sounds pretty interesting - I am sure that there is more press coverage out there to establish his notability. Llajwa (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While he has mostly been cast in supporting roles, the number of films he has starred in makes Trebor notable, in my opinion. The article is poorly sourced but most of the information is verifiable. Trebor has received some attention even for his minor roles:

Variety: "Trebor is superb as the acerbic Davidykov, ironically bemoaning, “We used to be such a beautiful police state,” and then affectingly describing how for all of communism’s faults, how important it was that the whole country was experiencing it together. Trebor’s Russian accent is excellent, and his perf is multilayered and nimble."

Los Angeles Times: "Beautifully performed by Armstrong and Trebor, Will and Viktor are moral men adrift in societies that reward avarice over character"

Los Angeles Times: "Martin Sheen is first-rate as Zigo, and there are convincing supporting performances here by Jennifer Salt as Ann and Robert Trebor as Berkowitz."

The New York Times: "His partners in crime are Robert Trebor, who provides comic relief as the proprietor of a pornographic photo studio."

The New York Times: "Robert Trebor is gripping as the community leader."

RogerEbert.com: "Seidelman also has fun populating the outskirts of her plot with good character actors, especially Robert Trebor as the tuxedo salesman. You may remember him as the smarmy, sweating porno store operator in "52 Pick-Up." The distance between these two good performances is impressive." Mooonswimmer 18:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Race Against Cancer

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

page created by a single-purpose account, on a seemingly non-notable subject, with no sources and a promotional tone. DrowssapSMM (say hello) 18:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Motorsport. DrowssapSMM (say hello) 18:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A one-off event that happened twice? There is no coverage of this race, even in the last decade, only hits are on the phrase. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Considered soft-deleting but better for this to be a consensus delete, relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In its current form the article seems to be purely promotional. Llajwa (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bikor

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

not eligible for draftify, previously removed from draft space. Does not cite any sources, tagged since April. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 19:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how is it not eligable for draftify?? PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:DRAFTOBJECT which says A page may only be moved unilaterally to the draftspace a single time. If anyone objects, it is no longer an uncontroversial move, and the page needs to be handled through other processes, such as deletion, stubbing, tagging, etc. Another editor moved this back to mainspace, which counts as contesting the initial draftification. We are not allowed to move this back to draft space except as a result of an AfD, which is what has been started now. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify: I don't get how it can't be restored to draft space? The author needs to do more work on it. Llajwa (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response above, which explains why the nominator was not allowed to draftify. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~leaning delete~~ Google searching suggests that this is actually called "Bikor Kalān" 24°12′54″N 78°37′30″E / 24.21501°N 78.62491°E / 24.21501; 78.62491. Gmaps claims to have a Bikor, but it's a blank spot on a river bank. At any rate retention as an article is untenable.Mangoe (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on improvements, draftify, as it's still not ready for prime time (e.g., can we get a definite lcoation?). Mangoe (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Searching for Bikor in the Indian census site does show a village of that name, in Hoshangabad district (which is the old name of Narmadapuram district). The populations are close (2026 v/s 2421 mentioned in the article). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far as resources online everything in that article can be just made up. If the author just puts the coordinates, I am happy to change my vote.

FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - This meets WP:NPLACE as a populated, legally recognized place and appears to be a reasonably-sized village however it needs cleanup and sourcing before it will be ready for mainspace. I added a source which lists Bikor as a Gram panchayat meaning it has its own local government. Mangoe, Google Maps shows the location here which seems to be the center of the governed area with the village itself to the Northeast.

We do need to address the repeated un-draftification and removal of deletion notices by single-purpose accounts, otherwise they'll just keep re-creating the article. Apparently if you're a new editor and your AfC submission is rejected for lack of sourcing, you can just keep adding unsourced information until you reach 10 edits and then just move it to mainspace yourself?!? I'm leaning toward extended-confirmed protection since the creator seems to have no interest in adding sources. –dlthewave ☎ 17:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - per Dlthewave. It may be presumed notable, as said, but it is not ready for mainspace. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. L Faraone 23:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy Hollow High

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

Cannot locate any reliable sources that give significant coverage. The only reference in the article is the movie itself. -- Mike 🗩 18:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Mike 🗩 18:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Plenty of review for Sleepy Hollow the movie, none for this. It was a real place apparently [10], but I doubt it's related. Simply no reviews to be found for this movie. Oaktree b (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The film has nothing in Rotten Tomatoes either. Non-notable film. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep & Rewrite article to be about the school. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Failure of the WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. If the actual high school with the name is notable enough for an article, there is of course no prejudice against creating one, but this article and its history should absolutely not be kept as the basis for a rewrite for that. Rorshacma (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The actual High school in Canada has an article already: Sleepy Hollow High School(Canada) ~~although the one in New York does not have one yet:~~ I have created the new york one: Sleepy Hollow High School(New York). PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now at Sleepy Hollow High School (New York) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there's no pretense of notability - it's unclear this is even a real movie. Llajwa (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is very much a real movie, a low-budget attempt to capitalize on the 1999 Tim Burton film. It's actually not half bad but B-movie schlock all the same. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Databases show the film exists. There are some reviews: [11] ; [12] [13], for example. But I am not extremely sure about these sites, especially the latter. ~~Maybe redirect to~~ List_of_horror_films_of_2000 or to List of horror films set in academic institutions.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
---> Keep. considering the coverage presented below by Cunard.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found these [1], [2], [3], & themoviedb review, none of which satisfy GNG. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Redirect to Sleepy Hollow High School PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable coverage and literally no one involved (with one exception) even has an article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources found by PaulGamerBoy360 appear to be reliable. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yep like i specifically said, they don't pass GNG. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Sleepy Hollow High (Sterling, 00). D/S/FX/act. Kevin Summerfield, P/D/edit/cine Chris Arth". Psychotronic Video. No. 34. 2001. p. 69. Retrieved 2023-10-28 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "Before Halloween, five troubled high school students are ordered to clean up in the woods where a pumpkin head horseman has been killing. The kids include Shannon (Meagan Lopez), a brilliant misfit computer hacker, Z (Ruben Brown), a big bald black drug dealer, and Bobbi (Maria Cooper), his pregnant girlfriend. Both lead female characters have suicidal tendencies. With decapitations, nightmares, and some 70’s style punk music. This is better than you might expect for a local Sleepy Hollow ripoff, but the scenes of a sobbing tied up white guy with a hood over his head being tormented by the black couple seemed a little out of place. Summerfield plays the teacher in charge of the community service project and Baltimore area movie regular George Stover is a teacher in classroom scenes. It was filmed in Sylersville, Maryland."
2. Scapperotti, Dan (1999-12-03). "Attractions Fatale". Femme Fatales. Vol. 8, no. 8. Retrieved 2023-10-28 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "Trailers introducing Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow to theatre audiences debuted earlier last summer. But someone is already hitching-up to the Headless Horseman's bandwagon. Director Kevin Summerfield lensed his Sleepy Hollow High, a compendium of "teen terror" vignettes, in the wilds of Hickory, North Carolina. Five high school seniors who cruise to a haunted house exchange tales of ghosts ‘n’ goblins: the topper has something to do about a not-so-blithe spirit who had lost his head. That’s right, Washington Irving's Legend of Sleepy Hollow characters have been adapted to a high school environment. Bram Bones has been updated Into an obnoxious jock, Ichabod Crane is the campus nerd and both compete for the heroine played by Shannon Hutchinson, ... The film is slated for a direct-to-video Halloween release."
3. Tobey, Matthew. "Sleepy Hollow High (2000)". AllMovie. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  The synopsis is 100 words long. The synopsis notes: "The first film from the directing team of Chris Arth and Kevin Summerfield, Sleepy Hollow High is an independent horror film that attempts to move the story of the headless horseman from Washington Irving's The Legend of Sleepy Hollow into a contemporary high school setting."
4. Henderson, Jenny (2002). The North Carolina Filmography: Over 2000 Film and Television Works Made in the State, 1905 through 2000. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-0-7864-5545-4. Retrieved 2023-10-28 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "1784 Sleepy Hollow High (fea). London Night Entertainment; Hickory. Cities: Hickory. Counties: Catawba. Scenes: In and around Hickory. D: Summerfield, Kevin. P: Summerfield, Kevin. Writer: Summerfield, Kevin. Crew: Damon, George (s). Cast: Hutchinson, Shannon; Finn, Justin; Benedict, Antonio; Townes, Adrienne; Brown, Maria; Brown, Ruben; Donigian, Wendy; Lopez, Meagan. A crew of three filmed this video in nine days. Length 90 minutes. Five high school seniors having a party in a haunted house, telling ghosts stories in which the five seniors appear as different characters."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sleepy Hollow High to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Cunard for uncovering these additional sources. However, I still do not believe they are sufficient to meet GNG.

I agree that source 1 satisfies the criteria for independence, reliability, and significance.
Source 2 is not sufficiently in-depth because it vaguely summarizes the characters and then has a quote from one of the actresses that takes up over one third of the column.
Source 3 is a 100 word synopsis that has no analysis of the film and I don't believe that a synposis is significant for the purposes of GNG.
Source 4 merely establishes that the film exists. The book is a list of films made in North Carolina that provides the high-level features of each film in the list (actors, director, crew, and one sentence synopsis) without further analysis.

voorts (talk/contributions) 18:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The 137 words of coverage in Psychotronic Video and the 114 words of non-interview coverage in volume 8, number 8 of Femme Fatales "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content".
Here are additional sources I found, though they provide less coverage than the preceding two sources I listed above:
1. George, Bill (April 2000). "Bill George article". Femme Fatales. Vol. 8, no. 15. Retrieved 2023-10-28 – via Internet Archive.
  Sleepy Hollow High's movie poster says "SCREAM meets DAWSON'S CREEK" –Bill George, Femme Fatales Magazine. I found a copy of the article in Internet Archive but when I clicked on the link, I received the message: "The item you have requested had an error: unable to load metadata from item location which prevents us from displaying this page. Items may be taken down for various reasons, including by decision of the uploader or due to a violation of our Terms of Use."
  Through searching for quotes from the article, I found that the article notes: "And north of the house, literally a stone's throw away, a crew is shooting Sleepy Hollow High ("It's Scream meets Dawson's Creek!"). It's shot on film. It's cast with an ensemble of disciplined actors who have developed a tolerance for freezing temperatures and post-midnight shoots. It's directed not by neophytes but experienced filmmakers who have declined to negotiate with any further shot-on-video venues. And it's budget, admits the 30-year-old producer, "is somewhere in the neighborhood of the first Blair Witch movie. ..."
2. Eidenmiller, Brooke (1999-07-29). "Local man parties as part of cast in the new Muppet movie" (pages 1 and 2). Hickory Daily Record. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-10-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Sepulveda is currently working on the Hickory-based film, "Sleepy Hollow High." Produced by London Night Entertainment in Hickory, this teen horror flick is not as graphic as a full-fledged horror movie. "It's more of a goose-bumps type of movie," he said. Not only will Sepulveda be in the film, his car will be too. The 1969 black Hearse with orange flames, Sepulveda's "weekend car," will be featured in the movie. "Sleepy Hollow High" is set to be released in October and will be sold in Wal-Mart and K-Mart stores."
There is enough information in all of these articles to write a start-class or C-class article under the Wikipedia:Content assessment.
Even if editors conclude the film does not meet the notability guidelines, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, the article should not be deleted if there are alternatives to deletion. There is a good merge target at The Legend of Sleepy Hollow#Sleepy Hollow High, where this film is mentioned.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A better redirect would be Sleepy Hollow High School, due to the fact that the whole film section in The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, is unreferenced, and the whole plot section is unreferenced. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PaulGamerBoy360 (talk · contribs), my first preference is to have a standalone article about the film because it has received enough coverage to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and for a start-class or C-class article to be written.

If consensus is that the film should not have a standalone article, I am fine with Sleepy Hollow High redirecting to the disambiguation page Sleepy Hollow High School. Sleepy Hollow High School should continue to mention the film and should link to The Legend of Sleepy Hollow#Sleepy Hollow High. I would also like to have the history of Sleepy Hollow High preserved, either at its present title or by the history being moved to Sleepy Hollow High (film) before being turned into a redirect.

The film section of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow can be sourced so that should not be a barrier to pointing readers to that section. The sources found in this AfD can be used to source and expand The Legend of Sleepy Hollow#Sleepy Hollow High.

I am willing to expand and source Sleepy Hollow High with the sources found in this AfD but have not done so because if consensus is against a standalone article, I would have wasted time doing so.

Pinging Mushy Yank (talk · contribs), who suggested several redirect targets for your thoughts about a standalone article or a redirect.

Cunard (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for those sources and for the ping. (Not sure why but your notification wasn't displayed on my page but all is well, I happened to pass by.) While I'm at it, I'm with you concerning the redirects in case a standalone article for the film is not what is decided, but with the sources you provided, I really cannot see why it shouldn't. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep this article we should rename it to Sleepy Hollow High (Film) & move the Disambiguation page to Sleepy Hollow High. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also about the sources provided by @Cunard, The First one Gives an error, #2 I Will NEVER look at due to the content, #3 is unreliable, # 4 is a simple listing.

And Eidenmiller, Brooke (1999-07-29) is routine Coverage.

None of them meet GNG. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding None of them meet GNG., you could not access the first source on Internet Archive (which I can still access). You declined to access the second source. These are the two sources I said allow the film to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the fact that the second source is a porn magazine it is unreliable, & I am now able to acces the first source and it does not pass GNG because it is just a plot summary. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Psychotronic Video article is not "just a plot summary". It contains critical commentary: "This is better than you might expect for a local Sleepy Hollow ripoff, but the scenes of a sobbing tied up white guy with a hood over his head being tormented by the black couple seemed a little out of place".

Both Femme Fatales and Playboy are men's magazines that contain nudity. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Playboy, Playboy is considered generally reliable. That a publication is a men's magazine that contains nudity is not by itself sufficient to rule it out as unreliable. Femme Fatales was founded as a sister publication of the science fiction magazine Cinefantastique and had editorial oversight. I consider it to be sufficiently reliable for information about films. Jason Sechrest, who had written for Femme Fatales, wrote:

Femme Fatales had launched just one Summer before in 1992, the “sister pub” to Frederick S. Clarke’s Cinefantasique magazine which he’d been publishing since before 1960. To be clear, Femme Fatales was not a “men’s magazine.” It was easily accessible to all ages, and was not, by law at least, considered to be pornographic. Though the women may have been wearing next to nothing, they were never (maybe rarely) completely nude. Michelle Pfeiffer, Carrie Fisher, Sigourney Weaver, Terri Hatcher, and many more had not only granted exclusive interviews to the publication, but had even graced its cover, making it a perfectly legitimate mainstream magazine in its own right. Yet, the majority of its glossy pages were filled with B-movie starlets and scream queens, the kind of girls you’d see on late night TV – especially Cinemax.

From this article in the Los Angeles Times:

To the casual observer, Femme Fatales magazine might just be another cleavage report from the Hollywood fringe, a girlie rag for males too young to buy Playboy or Penthouse. True, FF, a quarterly devoted to B-movie queens, is plump with pictures of scantily clad women staring open-mouthed into the camera. But read the articles in the nearly 2-year-old sister publication to science fiction’s Cinefantastique and a reader will discover babes of substance who seek escape from low-budget land as they rally against sexual exploitation and casting-couch abuses and voice dreams of true artistic satisfaction.

Cunard (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I wouldn't even recommend lumping SHH into the Legend of Sleepy Hollow article. The film is nowhere near notable enough and has no connection to the original story aside from the title. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In his review of Sleepy Holly High, Scapperotti 1999 wrote, "Washington Irving's Legend of Sleepy Hollow characters have been adapted to a high school environment." The source verifies that Sleepy Holly High is an adaptation of Legend of Sleepy Hollow.

It is due weight to discuss Sleepy Hollow High in The Legend of Sleepy Hollow#Adaptations, where it was discussed until an AfD participant deleted it. Once the "Adaptations" section gets too long, it potentially can be spun off into a separate article. Cunard (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NFILM, no WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No sources in the article (other than IMDB and AllMovie links which do not establish notability) and the above are promos and mentions, nothing that comes close to SIGCOV from an WP:IS WP:RS. Nothing in the article is sourced, nothing here can be merged and nothing here is worth keeping (its all on IMDB and AllMovie). // Timothy :: talk 13:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 00:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shere FASTticket

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

Subject fails GNG. Many of the sources provided fail WP:SPS and my BEFORE search revealed more of same. This is rail cruft. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (from article creator) I have access to a great deal of specialist offline sources, but not sure I can get round to updating the article within a week. If possible, please send to my userspace if I haven't done anything within a week. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per article creator. The article in its current form is not fit for mainspace, and does not demonstrate notability of any kind. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎ to allow for addition of more sources over time and other improvements. RL0919 (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Revenge

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

Could not find any reliable sourcing or reviews to meet WP:GNG. Only sourcing in article that is not a press release or blatant SPS is some guys blog. Jumpytoo Talk 18:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Paranormal, and Canada. Jumpytoo Talk 18:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Draftify A TV show that has just been released. Sources are largely press releases and commercial listings, no reviews or analysis. It is simply WP:TOOSOON (also see WP:NYF) to have a standalone article. Maybe a mention at CTV Sci-Fi Channel for the moment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Paranormal Revenge" is produced by Sphere Media, which is Canada's third-largest independent producer. Additionally, the series premiered on the CTV Sci-Fi Channel, a national cable channel, indicating a level of notability. According to WP:TVSERIES, "in most cases, a television series or season is not eligible for an article until it has been confirmed by reliable sources to have started filming". This show is confirmed to have started filming and has actually already started to air on a national network. There are references to external coverage from reliable sources which discuss the show and its details, thus satisfying the criteria of significant coverage in reliable sources. According to WP:NTVNATL, "Generally, an individual television program is more likely to be notable if it airs on a network of television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broader regional or national audience." This show has aired on a national cable network. If the argument is made that the article on "Paranormal Revenge" is not yet ready for standalone notability, a more constructive approach would be to redirect the article to the CTV Sci-Fi page where information about this series can be housed temporarily or permanently, instead of outright deletion. This is in line with the WP:INSTEAD guideline, which suggests redirection as a preferable alternative to deletion when applicable. The Wikipedia community encourages the improvement and expansion of articles rather than deletion. There's potential for more information to be added to the article as the series continues and receives more coverage. Similar to other television series articles on Wikipedia, this article serves as a comprehensive source of information about the series, its episodes, cast, and crew. This aligns with the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia and serves the interest of the public seeking information on "Paranormal Revenge". Informative Value: The article provides a detailed synopsis, information about the broadcast, production details, and streaming platforms, which collectively provide a well-rounded understanding of the series to readers. These points collectively argue for the retention or redirection of the "Paranormal Revenge" article in adherence to the platform's guidelines on notability and deletion.T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 21:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and any narrower notability definition. References are PR material. IMBD may never be used as a reference 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After due consideration I will accept Draftify as an outcome, though my preferred option remains deletion. The creating editor does not appear to understand how to verify notability even if they can quote chapter and verse of the verification criteria. That makes me question the wisdom of returning this to Draft. Deletion at AfD provides a small safeguard (speedy deletion if a new article is substantially the same as the deleted on) against the re-creation of material, whereas draftification does not provide the same protections 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concern. I believe if you are now 'watching' the original article, any recreation post-draftification will show up on your watchlist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LuckyLouie That it is in my watchlist does not mean I will see it. Some 40,000 other items are there, too. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Hmmm. Three concise guideline-based Delete arguments including the nom by experienced editors, and a long ramble by a single-purpose editor. TCH has made the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Inclusion isn't impossible here, but it isn't automatic either — the thing that TChaliburton is missing is that a TV show has to be reliably sourced before it passes the inclusion bar for TV shows, but this isn't. The rule isn't "as soon as the show has started airing an article has to exist even if its sourcing is scheisse" — it's "even after a show has started airing an article still can't exist until the show has passed WP:GNG on reliable source coverage". Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify because WP:TOOSOON. Save all the content offline or WP:DRAFT and republish when the series has generated the necessary additional qualifying references. 5Q5|^✉

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Klein

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of WP:Notability under GNG or SNG. No GNG references, In fact, no references at all except for a database entry on a website. Previously deleted. North8000 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any significant coverage in English and the Laotian version of his name (ທີໂອ ຄຣາຍ) used in the article brings up zero results Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jon B. Perdue

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

Delete: Article was created by possible WP:COI account. Does not meet WP:GNG since there is not significant coverage by independent sources; most references are about self articles by Jon B. Perdue himself or from organizations he was directly involved with. The one decent source, ProPublica, describes him as "a self-described guerrilla warfare expert" and "a onetime contributor to Breitbart". Individual (and possibly edits) are also linked to the now-deleted Center for a Secure Free Society [14]. WMrapids (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created by the possible WP:COI account, lacks notability and is written like and advertisement:

Bundling with Jon B. Perdue.--WMrapids (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition, the ProPublica journalist speaks about the individual beginning at 3:30 in this video, saying he "has worked for a sort of fringe think tank" and that the Packbow was created for "societal collapse".--WMrapids (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an interesting person but non-notable based on sources provided. Llajwa (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a lot of WP:SIGCOV. Many of the refs are self-works or profiles (such as his general Amazon one). Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Taylor (musician)

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted before and likely needs deleted again. The subjects claims to ANYBIO come from International Songwriting Competition and Independent Music Awards both of which are also probably not notable. If we eliminate those there is no claim of notability as the subject fails MUSICBIO and GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I'm sure there are better sources out there for this fairly prominent folk musician, but they need to be found, and the article needs to be made a lot shorter than it is; it is very long and promotional. Llajwa (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's really no saving this article, as it's had many of these unaddressed issues for nearly a decade. No viable third-party coverage, and it reads like a resume with next to no content. "Summary" has zero wikilinks and the rest is a series of unsourced lists (the "live" section is laughable). sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on draftifying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing found for this person; one tied to Taylor Swift, one that sued Katy Perry, one that played the trumpet. The sources used here are not helpful, and the article is more of a track listing than an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to International Songwriting Competition. Star Mississippi 01:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2003 International Songwriting Competition

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

The competition, itself is debatably notable. This particular year of the annual competition fails GNG and NCORP. As a list of awardees, this list also fails NLIST. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
●Delete (Sooner The Better) - Per Nomination PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PaulGamerBoy360, which of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion do you think apply here? (Or maybe you meant something like "this is a very obvious case"?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sooner The Better 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Events, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Songwriting Competition. There's no actual need to delete it, and it's just barely possible that someone would want to look at the old revisions if they were creating a ==Winners of the grand prize== section in the main article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Red Hot Chili Peppers discography#Video albums. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic Sexfunk Live from Heaven

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

article about a video of a live band performance. no indication of notability. Mbdfar (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that this seems non-notable, but my sense is that the de facto norm is for every album by a band such as this one to have its own article? If so, deleting all the minor ones might seem to be fighting against the sea. Llajwa (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is my understanding as well; at least for any releases by a major label.RF23 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red Hot Chili Peppers discography#Video albums - WP:UNRELEASED "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings, and related items) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." — Maile (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red Hot Chili Peppers discography#Video albums: While it is definitely worth noting that, as the discography page shows, this video album does have a Gold certification from the RIAA, that's the only sign of notability I could see. It gets mentioned in print directories of the band's discography, but not in any valuable prose.

And to @Llajwa's comment, no, that is the complete opposite of Wikipedia norms. Notability is not inherited, so just because this is a release from a very famous band doesn't automatically guarantee its notability. WP:NALBUM also specifies this point: "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gold certified release by a major label from a major artist; artilce needs sourcing work but the subject is notable enough.RF23 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NALBUM, I'm not sure the sourcing exists to take this beyond a stub. Perhaps someone else can access publications that I can't find. Mbdfar (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NALBUM states an article is notable if it meets one of the following requirements and lists: 3.The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country. This article should be a speedy keep, as it satisfies that requirement for notability. RF23 (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll down on that same WP, it states "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography.". Mbdfar (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further, it states the article "should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I find no sources that provide significant coverage. I would be very happy to see any. Mbdfar (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic rated it (although did not provide a blurb) this has been used in AfD arguments as a point of notability before. this Chili Peppers fansite shows two newspaper clippings that review it (from unknown sources sadly). I Think it falls into that wonderful little pre-internet hole where reviews and coverage are not indexed well or at all. RF23 (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red Hot Chili Peppers discography#Video albums - per WP:UNRELEASED, fails GNG. // Timothy :: talk 10:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Bengali films of 2013#October-December. Star Mississippi 01:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shudhu Tomari

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 17:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bengali films of 2013#October-December? (see TOI article in the page, mentioning its release). (NB- I deproDed the page, see TP).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable. Llajwa (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bengali films of 2013#October-December per Mushy Yank.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Atef Salem#Selected filmography. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edge of the Sword

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, only databases and articles on actors found DonaldD23 talk to me 17:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Egypt. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Atef Salem#Selected filmography, where a source can be added (and the title of the film, which is not there yet, the page being a stub and most of the director's films still missing). Willing to do it if such is the outcome of this discussion. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC) (NB- I deproDed the page and suggested the same thing then).[reply]
Redirect to Atef Salem#Selected filmography per Mushy Yank.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ by User:Galobtter as a WP:G5 creation by a blocked or banned user. RL0919 (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ahsan Ullah Chaudhary

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

This is a recreation of speedily-deleted item Ahsan Ullah Chaudhary. Although this item does make a substantive claim of notability, all of the references are either dead links or pages that do not mention the subject. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sazmancrpo. Bovlb (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Pakistan. Bovlb (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no claim to notability. Llajwa (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article claims that he was elected to the Punjab provincial assembly in 2008; this would qualify him for WP:NPOL as a Pakistani state legislator. However, the cited source ([15]) does not indicate that he was elected in that race for the listed district. I think that sentence may be a case of broken English (using "elected" instead of "ran for election" and "He defeated" instead of "He was defeated by"). As such, does not appear to be an WP:NPOL pass. Also note that the dead links are available via archive.org. Curbon7 (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cannot confirm that he was a member of the Punjab Provincial Assembly via the members' directory. Concur with Curbon7, does not satisfy NPOL, no presumed notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Bjarnason

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

Userfy (updated) I don't think this is an appropriate article, it doesn't meet notability, it is mostly an article-ification of a LinkedIn page. One of the sources is filler, EDI links to Electronic Data Interchange, not even Equity, Diversity and Inclusion microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 17:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh looks like I've stumbled onto an Wiki Ed assignment. I came across the page during WP:NPP; but I'm happy to respect the process and let the project assignment playout, I propose ~~the deletion go on hold~~ userify per Ian, below . But I will ping @Glenn.dolphin: and @Ian (Wiki Ed): for their attention here. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 17:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MicrobiologyMarcus If you're ok with it, I'd like to re-userfy this and let the student try to continue improving the article (and hopefully find some RSs). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More than happy with this suggestion! Thanks for the response @Ian (Wiki Ed) and happy editing @An.scottt. Cheers microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 19:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: CBC is fine. This is a brief mention [16], rest of the sourcing isn't helpful or related to this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to user space per Ian (Wiki Ed) and MicrobiologyMarcus

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move per above. // Timothy :: talk 13:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Download The True Story of the Internet

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2020. Only 1 review found DonaldD23 talk to me 17:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Science, Internet, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Unravelling the Web". Foxtel. July 2008. p. 38. Retrieved 2023-10-28 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "The four-part series Download: The True Story of the Internet, hosted by award-winning journalist and author John Heilemann, has unprecedented access to the men and women who have become synonymous with the Internet ... The final episode looks at the current trend of Web 2.0 —- a revolution that’s shifting the focus away from the big companies to the Internet users themselves, who are uploading content and creating the online communities shaping the Net's future and building its power."
2. "Discovering the intricacies of the web". The Hindu. 2008-08-30. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  The article notes: "The story, called 'Download: The true story of the internet', is hosted by technology journalist John Heileman. The series tries to capture the changing phases of the internet through the boom and bust of dotcom, Bill Gates' journey into a brave new world and the expanse of You Tube and My Space. It also dwells on the browser war, the search war and the e-commerce revolution."
3. Weintraub, Joanne (2008-03-02). "Television - Immortal life is less happy than it seems". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  The article notes: "At first, "Download: The True Story of the Internet" (8 and 9 p.m. Monday and Tuesday, Science Channel) comes on way too strong with some excruciatingly obvious points: The music industry runs on greed! Newspapers are threatened by Craigslist! Information-sharing rules!This two-night, four-hour miniseries starts getting interesting only when hyperactive host John Heilemann pipes down and lets the founders of Google, YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia, Yahoo, Amazon, et al., do the talking, making it a must to record and watch with a trigger finger on fast-forward."
4. Watson, Frank (2008-03-05). "Discovery's Science Channel Has Good New Series On Internet". Search Engine Watch. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  The article notes: "“Download: The True Story of the Internet is about a revolution — the technological, cultural, commercial and social revolution that has radically changed our lives,” is how the Discovery describes it. It makes for a great history lesson for people new to the industry and answers some of the urban myths surrounding our industry as well. Put the time aside and watch them, you will be glad you did."
5. McDonough, Kevin (2008-03-03). "TV Guy: Tracey Gold mines moms' secret lives". Times Herald-Record. United Media. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  The article notes: ""Download" begins with "Browser Wars," an entertaining look back at the mid-1990s, when a group of upstart engineers and a company named Netscape threatened the supremacy of industry leader Microsoft. "Wars" covers the meteoric rise of Netscape and Microsoft's tenacious response with Explorer, a browser that rapidly became the industry standard. The war would culminate in a prolonged antitrust case that, Heilemann argues, humiliated and chastened Microsoft chairman Bill Gates. A second hour of "Search" (10 p.m.) follows. Two more installments of "Download" will air next Tuesday."
6. Bronson, Diane (2010-08-08). "Celebrating Web's 20 Years". Savannah Morning News. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  The article notes: ""Download: The True Story of the Internet": The four DVDs in this series look at the development of Web browsers, the founding of Amazon.com and eBay, the impact of Google Search and Adwords, and the rise of Web 2.0 and social networking - all of which were nonexistent 20 years ago, and have radically changed the world."
7. "Best in Show". mX. 2008-07-18. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  The article notes: "As the title suggests, this intriguing documentary is the story behind the development of the internet and the battle over control of the web's search engines. Microsoft founder Bill Gates, right, is the corporate heavyweight determined to cash in the dotcom boom. His nemesis: a group of university students who want to make the fledgling world wide web more user friendly."
8. "TV Guide". Sunday Mail. 2008-08-10. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  The review notes: "Edgy, combative reporter John Heilemann revels in the craziness of this journey into Silicon Valley and the internet revolution. Tonight's ep reveals how Google became a vast corporation. First-hand testimony from the computer geeks who have changed the way we live and do business makes the story-telling personal, dramatic and surprisingly humorous."
9. "TV Guide". The Courier-Mail. 2008-07-06. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  The article notes: "Discover how the geeks inherited the Earth, in this fascinating four-part series that traces the evolution of the internet. It meets the technological visionaries who have changed the way we live and made untold billions along the way. Interviews with the founders of eBay, Yahoo, Amazon, Netscape, Google and more reveal the amazing stories behind a decade of astonishing change."
10. Johns, Ian (2008-08-10). "The Observer: Otv: Wednesday 13 August: Digital: Pick of the Day: Download: The True Story of the Internet Discovery Science, 9PM". The Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  The review notes: "An entertainingly told three-part series begins with how 'a bunch of twentysomething, code-crunching, burger-guzzling kids' came up with a web browser in 1993 that would challenge the dominant 'geek nirvana' of Microsoft and ultimately open the way for the Google era."
11. "Spinning a web". The Statesman. 2008-09-07. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  The article notes: "Beginning with the browser war between Netscape and Internet Explorer, the series progresses to tell the tale about how in a high-tech world, even the most powerful empires can disappear in one click. In The Search War, we look at Google. Welcome to a world where you can find anything. Just three years ago there was no Google and five years before that there was no way at all to search the Internet. The companies that took a stab at search engines included iconic names like Yahoo! and Excite, before Google came in."
12. Oliver, Robin (2008-07-07). "Pay TV - Tuesday 8th July". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  The article notes: "The founders of Google, Yahoo!, Amazon, eBay and Netscape tell how in less than 10 years the internet took over our lives and how they made fortunes along the way. These geeky, computer-obsessed nerds became turn-of-the-century visionaries in less time than it takes most people to gain their first promotion."
13. Briggs, Stacy (2008-03-03). "3-3 TV". The Intelligencer. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  The article notes: "This special, hosted by John Heilemann, a journalist who has covered Silicon Valley for decades, begins with "Browser Wars," an entertaining look back at the mid-1990s, when a group of upstart engineers and a company named Netscape threatened the supremacy of industry leader Microsoft. "Wars" covers the meteoric rise of Netscape and Microsoft's tenacious response with Explorer, a browser that rapidly became the industry standard."
14. Johns, Ian (2008-08-31). "OTV: Wednesday September 3rd: Digital: Pick of the Day". The Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  The article notes: "This sprightly history concludes with the web-enabled people power begun by Napster, the music downloading site that pioneered the concept of sharing files, and the phenomenon of YouTube, online social networking and the interactivity of the Web 2.0 revolution. And it shows that figures such as Rupert Murdoch can no longer enjoy an unchallenged dominance: he may have bought MySpace but there are always new rivals such as Facebook emerging to tangle for supremacy."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Download: The True Story of the Internet to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn due to the sources provided by Cunard.
DonaldD23 talk to me 18:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 01:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sumit Kadel

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

A review of ~~all of~~ the sources listed in the article don't establish notability. Instead, they link to one-off mentions of his reviews of other popular work. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 17:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC) Correction: one of the sources address the subject directly, but I question it's reliability. The other one is a collection of information that doesn't even contain the information it is cited to in the article. I have already removed the birthdate as per WP:BLP. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 17:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Made some changes and added relevant references, feel free to guide me to improve the article further more

Thank You MdShahFahad786 (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two centered articles and the various references to his work in reliable newspapers (like this one) seem to attest a certain notability. Rather Keep.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added articles for references , please review and guide me further MdShahFahad786 (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for reviews of the article by other users (not sure what you mean), it is not technically needed. If you have other sources about him (this one may be considered disputable, perhaps) even in other languages, feel free to add them to the page or here, that's all I can say. The future of the article depends on what consensus emerges from this discussion. I for one, think he should rather be considered notable as meeting the criteria for creative professionals (which includes journalists, Sumit Kadel being presented as a film critic among other things)) "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" (I think you can reasonably argue that he is widely cited by his peers) but I can only speak for myself. MicrobiologyMarcus was not, I think, satisfied with the current sourcing, so I guess you can only wait. I won't have time to comment here any further, I'm afraid. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sumit Kadel is well known film critic and trade analyst and he is considered in top critic in indian cinema now a days. He has been quoted in many newspapers and news channels for his criticism and analysis of films. He has got 180k followers on Twitter(X), 197K followers on Instagram, 193K followers on Facebook and 39.6k subsribers on Youtube Channel.

I hope this will prove his presence and notability. Feel free to suggest further on this.

Thank You MdShahFahad786 (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2023-10 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, added some reliable references for his notability and provided social media followers data for his authority in his field. Don't delete this article.

Thank You MdShahFahad786 (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails BLP sourcing. Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed name mentions, and an interview, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV with indepth independent coverage of the subject. // Timothy :: talk 13:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 23:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navayuga Group

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

Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To my eye, the independent coverage cited here does meet the criteria in WP:NCORP. Llajwa (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Llajwa, can you link to the independent coverage please? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - clearly a huge company just based on two recent news bits: (a big dam project and a $380 million highway project). That said, almost none of the reference links work. Looks notable but need good refs to prove it.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References I find do mention it but only briefly or are part of routine announcements of projects. Some of its affiliated companies are mentioned in other references but not enough in-depth coverage about the main holding company to meet WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination has been withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jax (Mortal Kombat)

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

After a pretty lengthy BEFORE look into things, all I managed to find was small mentions. The character is never really discussed in any significant enough capacity, and while mentioned in the context of black representation/stereotyping in gaming, that's solely it: mentions. Nothing in depth to really build an article around and not enough for SIGCOV.

While there was a controversy about his ending in MK11, what articles are there don't talk about his character but more a synopsis of it and then a brief mention of people's overreaction. It can be summed up better as part of public reception towards MK11.

With that said, what's here in the article's body is a lot of listicles that also barely cover the character, and a lot more that focus on gameplay of a particular title. There's not emphasis on why Jax is important as a character outside of MK and barely within the context of MK. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found one or two scholars discussing the character but getting access to such articles is a pain. Apparently, Wikipedia gives us access to such sources but I often have problems entering there.

This book goes in depth about the franchise but I couldn't mind any narrative mention of Jax other than this

University of Michigan Press

"Jax was instead introduced in MKII as a Special Forces major attempting to rescue Sonya from captivity by Shao Kahn. Although Sonya and Kano ironically proved the least-selected char-acters in MKI, Midway’s decision to include a sexualized female char-acter (likely inspired by SFII’s Chun-Li) over a heavily muscled Black character—effectively treating femaleness and Blackness as superficially interchangeable nods to “diversity”—may have been motivated as a broader appeal to heterosexual male gamers than to the smaller contin-gent of nonwhite American gamers.Meanwhile, some early critics of Mortal Kombat claimed that the games reinforced stereotypes of nonwhite (and especially East Asian) ethnicities."

This Portuguese analysis which compares MK2 Jax with MK3 Jax.

Universidade Federal de Goiás

[https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/60588788.pdf The buck is the most prevalent portrayal of the black male body in video games.

Mainstream media have forged a stereotypical image of blacks as inhuman savages with supernatural strength. In an article titled, “Black Characters in Video Games Must Be More Than Stereotypes of the Inhuman”, Sidney Fussell describes how black video game characters are placed in games for the sake of diversity. Most representations of black males tend to be uniform in the sense that they usually wear clothing that emphasizes their physical strength. Some characters such as Final Fantasy VII’s Barrett or Mortal Kombat’s Jax, have cybernetic enhancements that further perpetuates and emphasizes their physical strength, further contributing to their buck-ness

University Carbondale

This goes: "The first ever exhibition of crude violence in video games could be Custer‘s Revenge,

in which the player supposedly 'rapes' a native American woman. However it was Mortal Kombat which first presented realistic bloody violence. “Jax grabs his opponent‟s arms, holds them up over their head, and then—with a squish—he jams them all the way into their body so only the hands are visible. He takes a moment to light a cigar. He grabs his opponent‟s mouth and rips the head in half. He puts out his cigar on the tongue as blood gurgles out."

University of Calcutta.

There might be more.Tintor2 (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is some of these aren't published or show any evidence of peer review, unless the authors themselves are published/professor?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I really don't know what makes them all published but as I revised it, they are all scholars from different Universities. The first book at the top can be bought in Amazon.com so I'm not sure if we can use them. The talk page has two articles about the MK11 ending of Jax but I guess it doesn't make it that notable by itself.Tintor2 (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a host of sources to the article. Hopefully they're up to snuff, but if not, que sera sera. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made some research and managed to find commentary about the character's narrative like his arms, the response in general within the fandom and whatever was his role in Special Forces. I also incorporated a scholar but the one I trusted the most based on the way it was written. The reception section stills to remove some useless listicles articles but I hope at least now thanks to that edit and Beemer's it's in better shape when it comes to notability.Tintor2 (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reception section clearly demonstrates the character has received enough coverage to meet GNG. Especially the Racial characterization and response section which demonstrates the real life impact of the character. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 04:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Significant enough work has been done to show there is some notability to the subject and disprove my argument. Article still needs one massive enema and some sources weighed, but AfD's not the outlet for that, and I no longer feel it's in the same state regarding notability that I nominated it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy-delete (G11) (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Seeds (company)

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

advertisement page, moved from AfC by author despite clear COI as noted on their userpage. Further, fails WP:NCORP microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I further reviewed the page, I don't think there's anything worth saving here. I boldly marked as WP:CSD G11 but happy if someone wants to undo my boldness. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navayuga Engineering Company Limited

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

Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. A merger discussion can continue on the Talk, if needed. It's clear no further input is forthcoming here. Star Mississippi 02:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consultative Council (Poland)

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

Consultative council was an organ created by Polish Woman's Strike it was set up as a try to create an official representation of protestors during 2020 October's abortion protest in front of the government. I have doubt if this council differs so much in comparision to Woman's Strike itself. In my opinion, this article should be merged as parto of woman's strike article. Council was strongly active during some first mounths of protests, however most of theirs demands were not fullfilled. During that time, abortion protest were so much vocal topic in polish media. That's why some polish reductions wrritten articles reffering to the council's propositions. After the three years since this protests, that informal organization turned out to be not influential in discourse of polish public debate. Consultative council still exists as far as I remember but it's activity is only limited to broadcasting at its Fb funpage. I do not see any aspect of the notability of this council The Wolak (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, News media, Sexuality and gender, and Poland. The Wolak (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science, Politics, and Discrimination. Boud (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with All-Poland Women's Strike per nom Marcelus (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are two different arguments presented for merge/deletion: (1) is the Council distinct from OSK (Women's Strike)? (2) has the Council been active and influential during 2022/2023 or has it become effectively inactive?
(1) International researchers, at least one international NGO and a Polish newspaper see the council as having (at least for some time) included public participation way beyond Women's Strike itself: 500 people according to Kampka & Oross, not just an activist group of 5-10 key people. The researchers see this in the wider context of the evolution (or non-evolution) of constitutional and general participatory democracy in Hungary and Poland in the post-communist period. That's a different topic to an activist group. A protest group is a different sociological object than a group that aims to be something like a shadow government or constituent assembly. The key members are also clearly different. Per the sourced info in the two articles, OSK lists Marta Lempart, Klementyna Suchanow and Katarzyna Kotula; while the Council membership appears to be completely different. Moreover, the Council membership covers people individually active on a wide variety of different issues including the climate emergency, health services, education and secularism, way beyond women's rights as such.
(2) Whether the Council continued to be influential (as an organised body) after the first few months of 2021 is not relevant to its notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news guide to the current state of politics. The Council was notable in late 2020/early 2021 per the sources, and is of academic interest at least per the 2023 book chapter.
There is plenty of WP:SIGCOV in the Polish press and from international organisations. In particular, the bomb threats of Feb/Mar 2021 in themselves tend to be evidence of notability in the case of a citizens' organisation that threatens the political status quo. The threats against the Council attracted international human rights NGO attention (Human Rights Watch, Civicus, International Planned Parenthood Federation).
A merge wouldn't make sense, and WP:GNG is satisfied, so I don't see any justification to delete. Boud (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC) (clarification to point (1) Boud (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per comments and sources identified by Boud. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Bound's arguments about being mentioned in one sceintific article and some newspapers. Fact that an inciative exists, does not judge its notability. Describing a consultative council in barerly one scientific article is not enought to claim notability. Moreover, as you writing "inactive" I meant that council was working and being vocal in polish public sphere by some weeks of protests. But now, it's not mentioned and it's activity it is not reffered by media now, which does not meet with temporality criteria to be recognised as notable The Wolak (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to All-Poland Women's Strike. I looked at the sources and I am hard pressed to find WP:SIGCOV and independent discussion outside of the Strike. The council is mentioned in passing here and there, but I don't think it meets WP:GNG as an independent entity. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothesis of [not an] independent entity: The sources link the Council to OSK (All-Poland Women's Strike) because OSK launched it, and they distinguish the Council from similarly named groups. The sources on the Council mostly cover the broad range of human rights/environmental rights specialist activities of the Council members and what they campaign for - they present the Council as a broad entity distinct from OSK. I don't see anything in the sources claiming that the Council is controlled by OSK.
We have no sources stating that senior Polish activists on the Council whose political record goes back to the 1980s period of fighting against the Communist government - such as Beata Chmiel and Danuta Kuroń - are controlled by the OSK activists, who are clearly of a younger, post-communist generation (the named OSK members were aged around 10, 15 and 12 in 1989 per their Wikipedia articles). Nor do we have sources stating that the very young Polish activists on the Council - such as Dominika Lasota and Nadia Oleszczuk - likely too young and idealistic to be controlled by established activists - are controlled by OSK. The hypothesis that the Council is controlled by OSK despite the Council's wide demographic (and political) diversity is not supported by any sources. OSK was involved in creating the Council, but no sources establish dependence beyond the initial creation. [Analogy: the president of Poland formally creates the government of Poland, but the prime minister + ministers exist as a body (the "Council of Ministers") distinct from the president.] Boud (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even split between keep and merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoërskool Noordheuwel

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

upon checking WP:BEFORE, clearly fails WP:NHSCHOOL microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The school made the news last year when the school achieved a 100% pass rate and coming out at number 5 in Gauteng (high schools), came out atop in 2021. Seems like "Hoërskool" has branched and expanded a lot because there are lots and lots of schools with that name in South Africa. dxneo (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Hoërskool" is just the Afrikaans word for "high school", it's not brand name. Park3r (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, did not know. Been seeing Laerskool and maybe Hoerskool in Polokwane. Leaning towards delete if no coverage cannot be presented.dxneo (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Coverage seems limited to sporting results which is not enough for a school article. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Arcade Archives. Should a different target emerge, that can be handled editorially. The consensus on this not remaining a separate article is clear Star Mississippi 13:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Heart (video game)

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

fails WP:NVG, previously deleted for same reason. article is entirely gameplay. no secondary sources. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arcade Archives or NMK (company) per WP:ATD as a believable search. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's best to keep that article intact. TheAnaheimDude (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: TheAnaheimDude (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete Article was sent to draft space for improvement but was revert back to main space without improvements. Fails WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can always be sent back to draftspace with either the article move locked for new users (only E+C users and above can perform the move) or in more drastic situations the user can be blocked from editing mainspace altogether. – The Grid (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Its a plausible search term, but does not appear to have enough coverage in reliable sources to support its own article. Both of the targets proposed by Zxcvbnm would work, though perhaps redirecting to Arcade Archives might make a bit more sense, as that article is currently a lot more developed than the NMK (company) article, and actually already has more information on this game included. Rorshacma (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Foundation

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

Couldn't find anything to prove notability. Many databases prove the organizations existence, but there's no SIGCOV here. NotAGenious (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NotAGenious (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaia Foundation remains an important international environmental group operating out of London. It's Brazilian counterpart under Jose Luzenberger (Ex Minister for the environment) has played an important role in preservation of the Amazon, and the Australian counterpart was important in the preservation of the native forests of Western Australia, through the work of Vivienne Elanta.

Regards John Croft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.12.202.49 (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is an admirable goal for sure. But, we're looking at whether the company meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. NotAGenious (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: it's admirable, but not notable. Lambtron talk 04:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there's no indication of notability. Lambtron talk 04:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything which counts towards GNG. They definitely exist, and there are various mentions of their existence on e.g. the webpages of related charities, but I haven't found any in-depth independent coverage which counts for notability. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. WP:SK1/Snow. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Berent

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

This article has been flagged as without inline citations since May and, a few weeks ago, as failing to meet notability criteria. If no one steps up to address these major issues in response to this nomination for deletion, the article should go. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Politics, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not my field but GS seems to show quite healthy citations (152,77,64,46,42). A search in JSTOR shows a number of meaty comments suggesting possible notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scholarly record strong for this low-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: "Burnett" or "Barnett" is used as Berent's last name in some translations.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Xxanthippe's analysis plus a review of translated versions of the the refs in this article plus the Russian and Hebrew Wikipedia's. I did not find any article profiling Berent but there are many reports on the stir he's created, attacking his fellow academics for not supporting Benjamin Netanyahu.

Lack of inline citations is a problem to fix but not a reason to delete.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep extensive reviews of his work available, which include significant biographic details (eg review of A Nation Like All The Nations). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per all above. Plus, nomination in defiance of WP:NEXIST. Plus WP:SNOW. gidonb (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Berent is quite notable in Israel, especially online. When initially creating this article by translating it from Hebrew, I skipped reworking the lengthy external links section into references. I hoped somebody more footnote-experienced would eventually do it, in either the original or the translation.Guybas (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source Four

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find any secondary coverage of the product, the article is written like an advertisement, and has been tagged since at least 2016. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above, or because they are related and show no notability:

microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Products. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deletion logs of Electronic Theatre Control, and Source Four. May qualify for CSD. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing is patents and press-releases or industry mags? Nothing I'd consider keeping, and I can't find mentions of this lighting system. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They talk about it here, but it's simply captions to various diagrams or photos, nothing I'd call extensive [17] Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Source4 PAR article links to several books which (at least to me), seem pretty independent... I'm sure they could be used in the Source4 article as well. AriTheHorse 22:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, fair. But the advertising language can be fixed, right? I'll see if I can find any secondary sources... AriTheHorse 22:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the three, the Source Four PAR article seems to have the least number of problems, it should probably be kept.

Also, just to clarify, notability is related to the subjects' prevalence in reliable texts, not in real-life? AriTheHorse 22:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Baramma 2

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

No inline citations, and article is entirely a plot summary and infobox. No demonstration of notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 15:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Kim Damti

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

Killing of a non-notable person, one of 260 victims of a terrorist attack, one of 1,300 victims taking all Hamas attacks of 7 October into account. Content appropriate to the event, (Re'im music festival massacre), not a standalone article, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, Events, Terrorism, Israel, and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Re'im music festival massacre. Damti did not play a major role in the event, was not notable beforehand, and her death in particular has not led to any notable results (ie, widespread vigils, protests, notable art/music, etc). ForsythiaJo (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Re'im music festival massacre, as nom. Parham wiki (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted, for the following reasons:

(1) Kim Damti’s death was commented upon by the Irish head of state (Michael D. Higgins), the Irish head of government (Leo Varadkar) and the Irish deputy head of government (Micheál Martin). No Irish citizen killed outside of Ireland has had their death commented upon by all three persons holding those offices without there being a Wikipedia page to go along with it. (See, for example, Murder of Michaela McAreavey).

(2) Kim Damti is, so far, the only Irish citizen to have been confirmed dead in the Re'im music festival massacre. The population of the Republic of Ireland is 5 million. The equivalent would be 66 US citizens being killed in the attack.

(3) Several victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks have their own Wikipedia page (Benjamin Clark, Kevin Cosgrove, Welles Crowther, Frank De Martini, Melissa Doi). They have not been deleted, and continue to exist in their own right. WarrenWilliam (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PIA—TZ

The principle relevant policy in this case is WP:SINGLEEVENT. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to the September 11 articles (and it should be noted that at least some of those articles are about people notable for their actions on the day, being included in documentaries, phonecalls used in court testimony, etc.) 260 people were killed at the Re'im music festival massacre; 1,300 people overall were killed in the Hamas attacks. An article for each of the non-notable victims wouldn't be justified. An article for this non-notable victim isn't justified just because, as the only Irish victim, she was mentioned by Varadkar, Martin and Higgins. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)r[reply]

^ seconded. And I think the mentions of a person by heads of state are confusing indications of notability, with a person (or their death) being notable. A notable person or event is likely to be mentioned by authority figures, but that doesn't mean everything an authority ever mentions is notable - i.e., WP:INHERITED. ForsythiaJo (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even those articles are iffy, the chef appears rather routine. I might even revisit the need for those two, thank you for pointing them out. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ok, but what did she do to become notable? There is literally nothing about her life and two paragraphs about her death and aftermath. Dying in an attack doesn't get you past the notability requirements; to be blunt, she was 22 with a full life ahead of her, which kind of implies there wasn't much before that point (likely just school and normal teenage/young adult life experiences). NOTMEMORIAL applies here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. Nothing worth merging here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly one of but many victims, makes no sense to given them their own individual pages. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is war victims now going to be on wikipedia. All crime victims as well. She is completely non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She was not independently notable, before or after her death. Nothing came of her death specifically. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since there are no earlier mentions in the media. Also, the murder was within a massacre. gidonb (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This unfortunate death does not confer notability on a subject by itself. Prior to the event, she was as anonymous as I am. Expressions of sadness by politicians are also insufficient criteria for notability according to Wikipedia policies. When a particularly gruesome traffic accident occurs in Ireland or if, for example, a whole family was killed in such an accident particularly if very young children were involved, politicians tend to make remarks of regret about such incidents as well, to voice the dismay of the community at large, but they are not truly notable in the greater scheme of things: they are merely banal traffic accidents, no matter how painful. This death does not warrant a standalone article. Tragedy is not notable because it is so commonplace, therefore, an individual death is unremarkable by itself without additional markers of notability. O'Dea (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While tragic, her death is no more special than others who perished at the festival, and I removed a bunch of unnecessary quotes from the article as it's not an obituary. In fact, this conflict has spawned a ton of articles on subjects editors have suddenly deemed notable after their deaths, and frankly it's getting a bit out of hand (see Deaths in 2023). sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, per all the above comments. No significant impact beyond the immediate tragic incident. The fact that Ireland's leaders mentioned her is to be expected and does not contribute to her notability. Unlikely search term so a redirect is unnecessary. Mooonswimmer 12:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect‎ to Alien abduction#History. RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of alien abduction claims

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

This article seems to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of alien abduction, albeit with mostly fringe sourcing (ufoupdates, cufos, and ufologists). Delete and redirect to Alien_abduction#History (which could, itself use some sourcing review and improvement). - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Paranormal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Alien_abduction#History as the nominator proposes. This is just a history of claims, not proven events. Interested editors can add the Category:Alien abduction reports template at the bottom of appropriate UFO articles, which would then aid researchers with a list. 5Q5|^✉ 11:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or merge) as suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Yilangderen (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2023 G20 New Delhi summit. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Delhi Leaders Declaration

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

It fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:LASTING. Declarations/communique/joint statements are a usual occurrence at the end of any bilateral or multilateral summit. This declaration had nothing significant to merit a standalone article. It's basically also a WP:CFORK of 2023 G20 New Delhi summit. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New Delhi Leaders Declaration is just like any other international declaration just like Cape Town Open Education Declaration, UNESCO 2012 Paris OER Declaration. Any developments related to this declaration can be updated in this article and the declaration is significant enough to be an article. Also it should be noted that this is a summit involving 20 countries and gained joint consensus during an international summit. It is not a "statement", it is a joint consensus which was officially adopted. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV how? WP:GNG and WP:LASTING out of question as the article speaks for itself.

https://www.undrr.org/news/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-emphasizes-crucial-role-disaster-risk-reduction

https://www.unescap.org/blog/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-commits-resilience-riskier-planet

https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-reaffirms-culture-transformative-powerhouse-sustainable Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Environment, Medicine, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

New Delhi Leaders Declaration is just like any other international declaration just like

Cape Town Open Education Declaration

,

UNESCO 2012 Paris OER Declaration

. Any developments related to this declaration can be updated in this article and the declaration is significant enough to be an article. Also it should be noted that this is a summit involving 20 countries and gained joint consensus during an international summit. It is not a "statement", it is a joint consensus which was officially adopted. You can't simply remove an article by citing just because it has few lines I will remove. The article is NOTABLE.

WP:SIGCOV how? WP:GNG and WP:LASTING out of question as the article speaks for itself.

https://www.undrr.org/news/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-emphasizes-crucial-role-disaster-risk-reduction

https://www.unescap.org/blog/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-commits-resilience-riskier-planet

https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-reaffirms-culture-transformative-powerhouse-sustainable

Thewikizoomer (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Delhi. Star Mississippi 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article about the summit and be done with it; what we have is barely a few lines. This could be covered in a final paragraph in the article about the summit. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

New Delhi Leaders Declaration is just like any other international declaration just like

Cape Town Open Education Declaration

,

UNESCO 2012 Paris OER Declaration

. Any developments related to this declaration can be updated in this article and the declaration is significant enough to be an article. Also it should be noted that this is a summit involving 20 countries and gained joint consensus during an international summit. It is not a "statement", it is a joint consensus which was officially adopted. You can't simply remove an article by citing just because it has few lines I will remove. The article is NOTABLE.

WP:SIGCOV how? WP:GNG and WP:LASTING out of question as the article speaks for itself.

https://www.undrr.org/news/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-emphasizes-crucial-role-disaster-risk-reduction

https://www.unescap.org/blog/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-commits-resilience-riskier-planet

https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-reaffirms-culture-transformative-powerhouse-sustainable

Thewikizoomer (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the Summary section into the main 2023 G20 New Delhi summit, where the content naturally belongs. No need for this pointless fork. Owen× ☎ 15:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2023 G20 New Delhi summit. This does not have enough significant secondary commentaries in reliable sources that could justify a standalone article. The Poetic Frame ^{(talk with me)} 12:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 13:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OPPO F23 5G

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

WP:NOT a collection of technical details. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 15:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Draftify. Appears to meet WP:GNG. [18][19][20]. The article's state is not ideal, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. S5A-0043^Talk 11:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In its current form it reads like an advertising piece. The last sentence of every paragraph is an unsupported statement about how great some feature is. There is no substance to support any of these claims. (Repeated from article talk page). TundraGreen (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There doesn’t seem to be any agreement with what to do with this article, and the discussion has descended into name calling and personal attacks, so I think it’s best to draw a line under it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

British possession

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

Article is a recently created stub, it has the narrow legal definition and has a couple of tangentially related legal cases to bulk out the article. Removing fluff I can't see this article as being anything but a dictionary stub and as such not notable ie it is more suited for Wiktionary see also WP:DICDEF for relevant guidance. Recommend deletion W C M_email 14:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See [21]:

“

British possession means any British colony, Dependent Territory, Overseas Territory or protectorate, any territory under Her Majesty’s protection or any territory in respect of which trusteeship is exercised by Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom;

”

As I said when I nominated for deletion, this is only suitable for a dictionary entry. The term is a blanket term covering various territories, not suitable for an article. The article is being bulked out with tangential references. It seems a lot of comments are made in ignorance of what the term actually means. W C M_email 07:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a factually inaccurate statement based on a misleading source. To begin with, British protectorates were not British possessions, they were foreign territory subject to the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts: [22]. British protected states, League of Nations mandates and UN trust territories were not British possessions either. They were foreign territory. The Interpretation Ordinance (No 6 of 1968) of St Helena does not apply to any place outside of the island of St Helena, and relates almost entirely to a period when there were no remaining British protectorates. It is certainly not the normal definition. Please do not cherrypick from the first website you find on the internet. Most websites are trash. I have never even heard of that website. If you are going to cite sources, you need to cite real law books (usually printed or paywalled and very, very, very expensive). They have a great deal to say about this beyond the definition. To take just one example, Roberts-Wray claims that this concept was less frequently used because it was discredited by 1966, because it implied subordination (ie people in these territories did not like this concept). None of that is definition. That is commentary on a political controversy. James500 (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[23] FYI for any administrator reviewing this AFD, the above comment was refactored after I commented on it below. W C M_email 13:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it (as the nomination says) seems to be a minor law, that is not even enforced anymore. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven the laws providing definitions of "British possession" are in force in numerous jurisdictions. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of which are covered by many separate articles, we do not need an article, that looks to be )(almost) just a list of laws that contains the concept, many of which are no longer applicable. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true Wikipedia would not need article on subjects like British subject, British nationality, British dominion, and so on. All of these are covered by many separate articles. Where is the Wikipedia rule that says there can't be articles on subjects that are governed by multiple laws some of which are obsolete and many of which are current? For example, The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021 includes reference to "a relevant British possession". The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to jump in here to caution against the use of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; each of those articles can be examined in their own light and stand on their own worthiness. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 18:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose deletion of the in-progress article. The concept of a British possession is not, as the nominator claims, "narrow", it is rather, extremely broad, a fact reliably cited in the article. Historically, the concept has been the legal foundation of the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, the basis for the evolution of British subjecthood and British nationality law, the statutory foundation for the pound sterling as a globe-spanning currency union, and the legal foundation for extradition procedures within the British Empire and Commonwealth. Today, it remains a legally recognized concept not only in the United Kingdom, but also in various Commonwealth realms and Commonwealth republics, and an important part of British maritime law. Historically, various definitions have been used, and even today there are multiple competing definitions of legal relevance. Suggesting the article's deletion before it is even nearly complete seems wholly misplaced and is certainly premature. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some words of advice, if you vociferously defend your article as you did at Talk:British Empire then you're likely to influence the decision toward deletion. Your repeated excuse the article isn't finished doesn't wash, it can never be more than a stub and you've spam linked it to hundreds of articles. W C M_email 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not spam linked anything. Your claim that "it can never be more than a stub" is simply wrong. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page history clearly suggests differently. I see you have no intention of following good advice. Bon chance. W C M_email 15:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen from that link, there is no substance to the accusation. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery was outlawed 30 years before any of these laws applied. This begins to look a but synthy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not bludgeon this RFC and let others have their say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being. This is actually a subject of enormous historical relevance. My main worry was that it might be a content fork of material found elsewhere (e.g. English overseas possessions or British Overseas Territories or British Empire) but it doesn't seem to be. This is globe-spanning fall-out of the gradual collapse of one of the largest law-spreading empires that ever existed, which has had ongoing consequences for many countries and people since the end of the second world war. It's about as far from minor as a legal situation can get. It is also perhaps not the best idea to nominate an article for deletion only two days after its creation, when it is obviously still in the process of being written. While draft space is the ideal environment to incubate a new article, there is no obligation to do so, nor must articles in main-space be complete (in fact, there is no such thing as completion in WP). Let's give this article some time to see what it develops into. Elemimele (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. This topic has received significant coverage in many books and periodical articles. British possessions are a group of territories. One can speak of the British possessions. There are, and were, many laws that extend to every British possession or to any British possession. One can speak of the law or laws of (the) British possessions. The British possessions are ~~presumably~~ a legally recognized populated administrative region within the meaning of GEOLAND. James500 (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Presumably" - feel free to point to one. I'll wait. W C M_email 19:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the word "presumably". All I meant by that word was "if my understanding of consensus about the interpretation of GEOLAND is correct". James500 (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to point to one...I'm still waiting. W C M_email 07:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster, I looked up WP:GEOLAND, and it seems to me that the collective British possessions are a "Populated, legally recognized place". Certainly, each is, and they corporately are, a legally recognized geographic entity. In the case of Godwin v. Walker in New Zealand in 1938, the judge, having cited the entry "British possession" in Words and Phrases Legally Defined, said "I have no doubt from this definition of "British Possession" (see Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, s. 39) that this expression is used in the statute as descriptive of a geographical area …". (See: International Law Reports, Volume 23, 1960, pp. 284–295.) The area may have changed since then, but this fact remains. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really, so it'll be possible to define what this place is then. Go on, I'm waiting. W C M_email 00:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you said "It seems a lot of comments are made in ignorance of what the term actually means". I would have thought reading the article and understanding its content a prerequisite for nominating it for deletion. Read the article and wait no longer. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A notice of this discussion was placed at Talk:British Empire#A stub: British possession. Unfortunately, that thread has nothing whatsoever to do with the article British Empire and contains a lot of negative conmmentary on this start class article, including from the nominator. I do not think, for example, that a comment like this satisfies WP:APPNOTE which says "Notifications must be . . . neutrally worded", meaning that notifications must contain absolutely no criticism whatsoever. James500 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

British Empire was just one of literally hundreds of articles linkspammed to this stub. The discussion there was characterised by bludgeoning from the author of this article. You might have had a point if the diff you linked to was the discussion notification but it wasn't this was. I don't expect an apology for misrepresenting my comment, which was neutrally worded but I consider my comment in the discussion was perfectly reasonable given the conduct of the author. I'll end by thanking you for encouraging the author to continue behaving as he did. W C M_email 19:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The words "I . . . will shortly be nominating for deletion" are a notification. Linkspam is objectionable, but it is a grounds for removing links, and is not a grounds for deleting an article on a notable topic. James500 (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it wasn't. Thanks for confirming my prediction and doubling down on a pointless accusation. And again thank you for encouraging disruptive behaviour. You have a nice day now. W C M_email 07:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some odd mix of SYNTH, with laws from the 1600s and as recent as 1978. This is amply covered in the various articles on the British Empire and subsequent colonies/protectorates/what-have-you. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The chapter on the concept of a "British possession" in Roberts-Wray indicates that this topic is not an original synthesis. The article does not mention any legislation from before the 1860s. All of the legislation is about the same concept. The coverage of this topic in other articles is not remotely adequate. In fact, it appears to be virtually non-existent. Even this article is missing a great deal. James500 (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can read Roberts-Wray here [24]. From my brief read of it,(p37), it seems to have been defined in order to unite certain 'colonies', eg Canada post 1867, whereby each province under a central legislative body (ie Ottawa) was not a separate British colony. Ditto for Australia in 1901. India was excluded for reasons I am not sure about. The article says at the end it is an expression rarely used (in 1966) because it could cause offence. My view that the term is not notable enough still stands. Sorry if this is not the place to discuss this but I'm not sure wherelse to go. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For one example, many constitutions and laws were made under British Settlements Acts, by virtue of the fact that the territory in question was a "British possession" that satisfied certain criteria. There is a large body of literature on this topic, and this article is the only one that presently even begins to discuss, or could discuss, this topic of immense constitutional importance. James500 (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, Roberts-Wray says (p 39) that British India, and subsequently the Dominion of India, were British possessions under the Interpretation Act 1889, and this was not affected under the law of the UK when those countries became republics. India was not excluded from being a British possession merely because it was not a colony. James500 (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger 8 Roger @James500: Roberts-Wray (on page 38, the one page apparently read by Roger 8 Roger) is quoting the definition of the Vice Admiralty Courts Act 1863, which for its purposes excluded the British possessions in India, as they had been called since Pitt's India Act ("An Act for the better Regulation and Management of the Affairs of the East India Company and of the British Possessions in India"). Had Roger 8 Roger enquired further, even on the same page of Roberts-Wray, it might have been made clear that India is expressly and explicitly included in the definition of a "British Colony and Possession" by the Documentary Evidence Act 1868. ("British Colony and Possession" shall for the Purposes of this Act include … such Territories as may for the Time being be vested in Her Majesty by virtue of any Act of Parliament for the Government of India…") This Roberts-Wray states plainly on page 39. Incidentally, J. N. Saxena [25] disagrees with Roberts-Wray on whether India continued to be a British possession (at least in terms of Indian law) - he thought India ceased to be a British possession on the establishment of the republican constitution in January 1950. In the 2018 edition of Cross and Tapper On Evidence, a footnote on page 700 [26] states "Quaere whether this statute still applies to all Commonwealth countries". All colonies are possessions but not all possessions are colonies, at least since the mid-19th century, at which time a legal distinction was increasingly, though never uniformly, observed between different types of British possession. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed this tendency in Wikipedia, whereby people who make a mistake, don't apologise for it but double down. Google snippets is a very dangerous tool to use. Had you been more thorough you'd have found this for example [27]. The fact is British possession is a simple legal term, a definition suitable for something like wiktionary for example. You could summarise the term as:

“

British possession means any British colony, Dependent Territory, Overseas Territory or protectorate, any territory under Her Majesty’s protection or any territory in respect of which trusteeship is exercised by Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom

”

And that would be it. W C M_email 07:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use snippet view, I used the scan internet archive. (I also looked at a large number of other books on both the Internet Archive and Google Books). I did not link to the internet archive, because I was frightened that what Roberts-Wray said in his book might be twisted into exactly the sort of freeman on the land style pseudolaw wrong information that I am seeing in the quote from the website you are linking to. (I have explained why that quote is wrong further up this page).

I have noticed there is a tendency on this website to make personal attacks that consist of false claims that someone has done, or failed to do, some act off-wiki. Because it is very easy to get away with making false accusation personal attacks about off-wiki activities that are not recorded by this website. James500 (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You started off this conversation with a silly personal attack and the misleading use of diffs to do so. Its also quite obvious you used snippets. The post hoc fallacy and further bizarre accusations that a law dictionary site is a sovereign citizens resource is just so beyond belief that you've finally shredded any credibility you might once have had. Feel free to have the WP:LASTWORD I can't be bothered to reply further. W C M_email 11:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is perfectly plausible that I am not inclined to encourage non-lawyers to read law books. And, yes, there is a scan of The British Year Book of International Law 1949 in the Internet Archive, I have read the full text of Fawcett's article in that book (and I won't say which scan or hard copy I used), and I am still not going to link to that scan, partly because I don't want to encourage you to read it, and partly because I do not have time to determine if the scan is public domain for non-renewal etc. James500 (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre, you claim to have sources but don't wish to provide any, I note its quite some time since I invited you to provide just one example. Utterly bizarre that you're still doubling down when a simple sorry I goofed and the matter would have been closed. Oh well. W C M_email 12:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did just provide you with this and I did provide you with Roberts-Wray. And I don't want to encourage you to make any edits in relation to this topic at all, because I don't want to see an obscure piece of legislation from the tiny and not particularly important island of St Helena cherrypicked, quoted out of context in a way that is completely misleading, and then misrepresented as the only thing that can be said about this topic, which it is not. Or similar mistakes. James500 (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, another google snippet page, after I pointed out the folly of using snippets. As Roger pointed out, if you look at the archive copy of Roberts-Wray it doesn't back the claim you made for it. And yet another personal attack, very stylish. I always love the ad hominem school of argument but surely it would just be better to stop digging? The fact remains that this term has very little meaning and whilst suitable for a wiktionary entry not for a full-blown article. I note I'm still waiting for one of these myriad of examples you claim prove your case. Just one. W C M_email 13:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts-Wray does indicate that this topic is not an original synthesis, which is the claim that I made for Roberts-Wray. Roger 8 Roger did not claim that this topic is an original synthesis. And now you are misrepresenting Roberts-Wray, and what I said, and what Roger 8 Roger said. It is obvious that you are misrepresenting things on purpose, with intent to obtain gratification from causing annoyance to others. I am no longer prepared to interact with you. Goodbye. James500 (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, if anyone I am still on speaking terms with is interested, I had another look at the Internet Archive and found a second scan of Fawcett that I am satisfied is CDL (from the Trent University donation), and it confirms that British protectorates, British protected states and UN trust territories were generally not considered to be British possessions, which is what I said it confirmed. For the further avoidance of doubt, some British possessions, such as British India, were not colonies: [28]. James500 (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he did, that's your strawman. My point from the outset has been that this article by its very nature can't be more than a dictionary term. The term British possession doesn't correspond to WP:GEOLAND as you claimed. The first reference to it in legislation dates from 1889 for example. You'll also find as a vaguely defined term, some authors will included certain types of former British territories such as mandates, others will exclude them and in any case as Roberts-Wray alludes to, the term became obsolete long ago. But this has been educational for me, for the bizarre leaps of logic people will adopt just to avoid saying sorry. Gibbs may see an apology as a sign of weakness, the opposite is true.

It'll also come as a surprise to many that India isn't a former British colony granted independence in 1947...

Oh and I'm deeply, deeply upset over your further personal attack but I'll get over it. And FYI I obtain gratification from the collaborative effort of producing a quality encyclopedia, I don't suffer fools who wish to detract from the quality of the product because their ego got bruised. W C M_email 14:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before I forget, still waiting for example pertinent to WP:GEOLAND, lost count of the number of times I asked. W C M_email 14:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt only, the earliest reference to British possessions in legislation that we have found so far (the Vice Admiralty Courts Act 1863) dates from 1863, not 1889. James500 (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is an important legal concept, distinct from others mentioned. Llajwa (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, if you can show I'm wrong and this is a suitable topic for an article, I'll withdraw the nomination. Please show me how this is suitable for anything beyond a wiktionary entry. W C M_email 07:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: I participate in many AfDs. In contrast to most of the others, this is an unpleasant discussion.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:A. B.: I am going to withdraw from this discussion altogether. James500 (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a WP:DICDEF of a disused technical term being presented as something far more significant. There are lots of sources, sure - but most of them seem to be primary sources. In particular, large parts of the article seem to be solely or primarily sourced to the text of legislation. I'd further infer that the fact that legislators felt the need to define the term separately in so many different pieces of legislation rather implies that - contrary to the article - it was not necessarily a well-known or well-used term, and it certainly wasn't a defined administrative division of the British Empire as argued above. Kahastok talk 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kahastok Firstly, no part of the article is solely or even primarily sourced to the text of legislation. All of the article (excepting some of the quotations of the legislation themselves) is derived from secondary or tertiary sources. While there are conflicting definitions, these mostly date from before the 1889 act, which sought to give a unified definition to the term. Since then, the definition has been quite stable. Secondly, the concept is emphatically not disused. Its application is more limited than it was in the imperial period, but it is still very much an active legal notion. Thirdly, looking at the link you supplied, the example "Article subjects: a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The article octopus is primarily about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth" might be mirrored here: "the article British possession is primarily about a legal concept, its history, its application, its use as a basis of other legislation, its territorial jurisdiction, and so forth." Dictionary definitions are about single words and phrases, but this article is about a defined group of countries and territories which share specific political and historical characteristics. An exact equivalent article on Wikipedia is "British Islands", a juridical and legislative division of the (former) British Empire whose meaning also varied through the course of the 19th century and which is now fixed by precisely the same laws as the British possessions (namely, the Interpretation Act 1889 and the Interpretation Act 1978). The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'British Possessions' means land under British control. That is its common meaning and is so obvious we do not have to elaborate. When used in legislation it did have to be defined exactly to avoid confusion within a growing and variably empire. That is also obvious in the context of legal documents. That is why most acts of parliament have a section on definitions, and in some cases one act on definitions is created to cover all other acts. This proposed article is all about the legal definition of 'British Possessions'. It is not notable enough IMO. It might crop up as a topic for discussion in a text book on the law or in a judge's case summary, but that is not notable enough. What next? Do we have articles on other legal definitions of common terms? I am aware of a series of legal claims regarding contracts in which a very important point was the difference between something being 'new' or 'as new'. In some contracts and statutes the precise meanings were not defined and they were used interchangeably, or if they were defined, different documents contradicted each other. That is an example of where the meaning of a word or phrase has to be defined, but that is totally separate from its common usage meaning. If this article is to go through I think the title should be changed by adding (in law) at the end, or something similar. And, BTW, about the remarks higher up, I had read Roberts-Wray in full, not just p37 but I had only briefly read it as I indicated. I appreciate the elaboration given. My main concern was to find it somewhere that was more accessible to others, hence the link I gave. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roger 8 Roger You say "The term 'British Possessions' means land under British control" but that's not immediately obvious and it differs from the definition in law. "Possessions" does not automatically mean "land", "British" does not automatically mean "relating to the government of the UK", and in fact the British possessions are not under the control of the British government anyway, since they are mostly self-governing, or are even independent states. You ask "Do we have articles on other legal definitions of common terms?" and I have already answered "Yes: there is the "British Islands" article. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well-sourced article about the evolution of an important and widely discussed legal concept. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The topic is notable. It is verifiable, indeed, it is verified. It is far greater in scope than a WP:DICDEF. If it contains WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH then the community is perfectly capable of handing the matter. There are some difficulties with the sourcing. The lead contains WP:CITEKILL whcih requires correction, for example, but as we say often, AfD is not cleanup. I believe the any issues with this are susceptible to salvage by the community, that this passes WP:GNG, is likely to require collegial editing, and is, apart from being notable, both useful and important (which I agree are not Wikipedia policy items). 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of the 60 or so references around half are acts, not RSSs. Most, if not all of the rest are text books or subject specific works. A lot of these sources contain mere snippets where the term 'british possession' is mentioned. Even if the citation bombast is tidied up, this won't change the fact that the term is heavily subject specific. I could not find any examples where the term, as meant here, is used outside the legal community. Because it has a very commonly used non-legal meaning, if this article is to stay I think it should be treated as meeting WP:SNG and have it's title amended accordingly to British Possession (law). BTW, we should not view this article as being well sourced just because there are 60 plus citations. As said, most of those sources don't stack up as RSSs under closer examination. Just because somebody shouts loud enough doesn't mean we should believe what they say. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 23:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an important legal concept, not a niche topic, and has had real-life relevance throughout the commonwealth. For example, the concept affects the family histories of Chinese descent whose descendants born in areas under British administration (as noted in the article).

I have added a small section, with law review citation, dealing with the decision of the Privy Council in Christian v The Queen. British possession status of the Pitcairns was at the core of that decision. The cited article[29] examines the British possession concept at some length and should be considered significant coverage. The Kennedy article also is single-subject and seems worthy of being considered significant coverage for notability.

The article definitely needs a cleanup, but it's been greatly expanded since nomination. As a general comment, the statute-by-statute presentation may have relevant content but it's hard to see based on how it's presented. However, this is not a grounds for deletion.

While I have tried to consider arguments made above, I freely admit to a high degree of TL;DR as a result of the tone of the discussion. I'm focusing on the article as it stands and the Oblivy (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Henderson

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

I do not believe this article/person passes WP:GNG. I found a couple self-published op-eds from her and she's been interviewed a couple times but I do not see numerous in-depth articles written about her. The references used in this article are quick "middle of the moment" articles that do not show notability. The fact that she was interviewed about racist costumes does not show notability. The fact that she left the NDP (I don't think she was ever elected to a notable position) does not show notability. The references I can find online seem to show that she's been interviewed for sound bites/opinions but I don't think that makes someone notable enough for Wikipedia. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing notability. The first Toronto Star article is basically her talking to the newspaper about why certain Halloween costumes are/were offensive to groups (before they were removed from stores). She now writes for the newspaper [30]. She seems to be the "talking head" media in Toronto go to when they want to do an article about the issue [31], which is fine, but none of the articles are about this individual, only asking her opinion on xyz thing. "Advocate" is another way of saying marketing person, which seems to be what this is, she's the "expert" on sensitive issues involving certain communities (nothing of which is bad, it's just not the type of notability needed to have an article in wikipedia). Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can do better. Notability is not established by sources in which she's the writer or speaker giving soundbite commentary about other things, it's established by sources in which she's the subject of coverage and analysis written by other people — but the sources here are the former, not the latter, which means they aren't helping to get her over WP:GNG at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of directors who appear in their own films

AfDs for this article:

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

A largely unsourced and trivia centric list that has not seen fleshing out in the 13 years since its last nomination. There’s no academic assessments, director quotes, film critic insight about these cameos it’s really just “Oh, Spielberg made a cameo in these films”. Doesn’t merit a separate article. Rusted AutoParts 14:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this would work as a sub category under Category:Lists of film directors, but as an article, it's just one long mostly-unsourced endless list. — Maile (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Lists of people. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The guideline says: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". It has:

Etc, etc.

Those articles vary in scope, quality and approach but the list has been discussed as a group by multiple independent reliable sources. A list, unlike a category, allows to organise the entries, and add comments and explanations that are needed, and to source them properly. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, we can safely throw most of those sources in the bin for questionable or no reliability. There being top ten director cameo lists does not in any way make the article notable. Especially if it just exists in the form it does. There are three sections:Directors regularly appearing, actors directing themselves, Directors who SOMETIMES cameo. What exactly is substantive about this? The actors section could easily be removed, and there's hardly any notability toward directors SOMETIMES cameoing. Those removed just leaves the top half, which by itself is not worth an entire separate list article. Besides, there still isn't any insights or critique to the page. A page just pointing out that Seth MacFarlane appears in his directorial efforts is still akin to there being a list on the most popular film Easter eggs. No substance or encyclopedic worth. It's fancruft, it's trivia. Rusted AutoParts 21:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like it, that much is quite clear, but there is strong evidence that it meets the guideline. If you think this should be split into 2 or 3 lists (one for actors directing a film in which they play, one for directors who appear in almost all of their films, and one for directors who appear in only a few or one of them), it's another discussion (either article TP or split proposal). No further comment. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all about disliking it or not, it's seeing no notability or value in it being on the encyclopedia. That strong evidence is not strong in the slightest, especially when you realize about half of those sources are themselves lists. It's an interesting enough topic, but one that's ultimately not notable enough to warrant an article. It would be akin to creating List of castings the Marvel Cinematic Universe almost went with, a topic people like to discuss but one that holds no intrinsic value. Rusted AutoParts 21:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per My, oh my! Clearly discussed as a group, such as Filmsite, which has not only "Greatest Film Director Cameos (in their own films)" but also "Greatest Film Director Cameos (in films of others)". (In fact, a second list for cameos in other people's films may be warranted.[32][33][34]) Sourcing is not a big issue, and AfD is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, another listicle? This AFD is not designed to strongarm a cleanup, I genuinely feel this article has no encyclopedic value and is overblown trivia at best. Rusted AutoParts 01:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is clearly the only reasonable decision in the present state of the article. If it was supplied with adequate sources (lots of them) then a revised version might be OK. Athel cb (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rusted AutoParts. Regrettably, I do not believe it is anything more than a trivia article, as interesting as it may be. It appears quite common for directors to seek to self-insert, to the extent that I don't believe it to be notable as a standalone article. Further, the criteria between what counts as an 'occasional' cameo and a 'regular appearance' at this point seems completely arbitrary, and I don't see any way of resolving this. I think Athel raises a good point about many sources breathing life into the article (a few sources as of now are YouTube), but I still believe it is of no encyclopedic value. Cameo_appearance#Film_directors exists. Nonovix (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly reluctant Delete. There might (might) be an article to write here about this as a general phenomenon. Such an article could reasonably mention some prominent examples (Hitchcock, Tarantino, etc), but I don't see how a list of every random director who ever appeared in their own film really makes the cut. Of the sources brought up, there are basically two types: mildly in-depth about specific directors (which could help with the general article I mentioned), and listicles (and listicles just don't really count towards notability). At best, I think this is a case for WP:TNT. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a way too long and trivial list of cruft. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I would be willing to refund this to userspace upon request in the understanding that it wouldn't be recreated without reframing. I appreciate that hard work has gone into this, but effort alone cannot turn a guide into a Wikipedia article; their purposes are distinct. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First generation college student writing

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

Per my comments at the education noticeboard, this page, although a reasonable piece of undergraduate writing, is more of an essay than a Wikipedia article, and has too much overlap with first-generation college students in the United States. – Teratix ₵ 14:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 14:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - not a suitable topic, content is unhelpful to readers, and it is written like a WikiHow essay (and apparently is an essay). This is not a depository for student essays, they should, at most, be kept on a flash drive and then never looked at (do kids today even use flash drives anymore?). Seriously, though, this is just a matter of the topic of the article not being suitable for WP, regardless of the style of the writing. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the current article is a (referenced) essay, unsuitable for Wikipedia, but I'm not totally convinced that there is no overall possible subject here. A slightly broader article on the difficulties faced by students coming from non-college backgrounds might be possible, especially if it had a title whose meaning was unambiguously clear at first glance. There is certainly a lot written on the subject. It would fit in with Educational inequality but that's already a very long hotch-potch of an article. It's a form of educational disadvantage, but our article Disadvantaged is pretty awful. I'm not opposed to deleting this current article on TNT grounds, but nor am I opposed to someone re-writing a closely related article, if they do it properly. Elemimele (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the instructor of the class in which this article was developed, I appreciate your comments, Elemimele and Atsme. This first year / first generation undergraduate was really proud of the work they did here as well as of the sources they compiled. And for what it's worth, contributing to Wikipedia on an article of personal importance for this student was hugely empowering to her. As the class is now over, I can't really ask the student to revisit her work, but I would be happy to try and revise this article, although I would likely need some pointers on how to do it properly. JayKatJay (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is actually a notable topic with a very good pool of reliable sources. First rule of thumb when determining N is that we do not judge the current state of the article or state of sourcing. I am of the mind that with some copy editing, and a little assistance provided to the author/article creator, it could easily become "encyclopedic" which would actually prove far more beneficial to readers seeking knowledge, far more so than the latest football scores, or movie ratings.Atsme 💬 📧 16:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's an article here based on the sourcing, but it's about the high school/college differences that students experience, not what this talks about... Essay or a Linked In post perhaps. I might have sent to draft, but there's too much here that we can't use vs what can be saved. Right idea, wrong topic perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timber City Academy

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. or partial matches. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no in-depth sources in GNews Archives and GBooks for Timber City Academy and its former name Butuan Chinese School. Alternatively, redirect to Butuan#Education as it is briefly mentioned there --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. HueMan1 (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Folderly

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

PROD declined. My original reason was "No reliable sources found in my search, none used in the article discuss the software at length. Forbes Contributor pieces can't be used, press-releases are not reliable sources, user-generated ratings sites are not reliable sources.". Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Delaware. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The PROD was removed by an IP with the comment "looks reliable with enough good sources in Cyrillic sources I guess, some ratings have to be excluded from the page". The references are routine start-up coverage about Belkins launch of this product for avoiding spam-filtering of mailout campaigns, along with founder interviews, lists of available jobs, etc. Neither these nor anything found on my searches demonstrate attained notability for this product or Belkins, whether under WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated bid managers

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

No evidence provided that an "automated bid manager" is actually a thing that exists (other than the fact that sure, maybe people do manage their bids somehow). This article isn't needed. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Click tag

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

An encyclopedia doesn't need a poorly sourced article on an obsure HTML parameter. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources are how to use it for Flash ads, and the old Myspace before it got reworked (neither of which is still around); all sourcing I find now is how to use it to make Google ads, on a google support site. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's a guide on implementing click tracking in ad networks when using Macromedia Flash. Too specific to present historical value and ultimately lacks sources. PaulT2022 (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Water Mission

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

in my WP:BEFORE I couldn't find any independent sources that discuss the subject. A couple reference different, similarly named projects, but nothing independent about this project. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 14:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Williams Communications#Telecommunications. This looks like the most suitable compromise between those who have been in this discussion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation

AfDs for this article:

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

This is pretty clearly an advertisement piece. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 14:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Promotional tone is not valid grounds on its own for deletion: that's an issue can be cleaned up, unless an article is blatant advertising and needs a complete rewrite, in which case speedy deletion G11 is used. Although the article doesn't currently make it clear, the company was closed in 2002 [35], so advertising seems unlikely. As the article clearly asserts notability per WP:CORP, can nominator please clarify their rationale for deletion? Wikishovel (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to point out a few things regarding the significance of iBEAM Broadcasting Corporation:
- The page has been in existence for nearly two decades, and while some references might be disappearing due to the age of the company, it doesn't diminish the historical importance of the content.
- iBEAM Broadcasting Corporation was foundational to the streaming industry. It's widely recognized within the industry that this company was a precursor to the streaming giants we see today, such as Netflix, Apple, Hulu, and others. Its influence was global.
- The mention of 60 million streams, which is cited, underscores its significance. To put it in perspective, during its prime, this was more traffic than major platforms like Yahoo.
- Rather than just suggesting it be deleted, please suggest how to make it better or be more specific.

Given these points, it's evident that the company played a pivotal role in the evolution of online streaming, and its page serves as a historical reference, not an advertisement. nilslahr (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's this magazine article about the iBeam multimedia portal: [36] --Mika1h (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current tone of the article is entirely inappropriate (see also: WP:NPOV, section: Impartial tone, subsection WP:SUBJECTIVE), which is not too surprising given its lifted straight from the press releases used as references. Contra Wikishovel, I believe this is a clear WP:DEL-REASON #4 even if it doesn't meet #1. It may be theoretically possible to write an article that does not have such inappropriate tone even sourced mostly from press releases . I don't think this is a G11, which would be subject to deletion in draftspace also, so if someone wants to make the attempt, no objections. But this is not suitable for mainspace. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge select content to Williams Communications#Telecommunications, which is was merged into; and a mention that if a company is dead, WP:PROMO can't be obviously invoked unless you have a modified DeLorean in your driveway. Nate • (chatter) 16:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that promotional or otherwise non-neutral tone belongs on the encyclopedia, even if the entity being promoted could not possibly stand to be affected. The legal reason why we would not allow advertising is because it's a deceptive way of gaining financial advantage (WP:COVERT), and we extend that to well beyond what is required by law because a) we don't like it, b) an abundance of caution, and c) it being a good general principle. Same as copyright here. But even were it perfectly fine and dandy otherwise, PROMO is fundamentally unencyclopedic and a clear violation of NPOV. For example, if someone created an article with the following text, it should be deleted under G11 because it is an ad even though FooBar Corporation does not exist and could not possibly benefit from advertising:

About FooBar

FooBar Corporation is the next-generation leader in widget innovation. Our cutting-edge widgets are used by millions of people around the globe, and we are committed to providing our customers with the best possible products and services.

FooBar widgets are known for their state-of-the-art technology, sleek design, and intuitive user interface. We use only the highest quality materials and components in our widgets, and we back our products with a satisfaction guarantee.

If you are looking for the most innovative and user-friendly widgets on the market, look no further than FooBar Corporation. Our widgets are sure to revolutionise your workflow and exceed your expectations.

Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The concerns regarding the promotional tone of the article are valid and should be addressed through editing, not deletion. The historical significance of IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation in the development of streaming media technology is well-documented and notable for several reasons:
- The company's closure in 2002 indicates that the article is not serving a promotional purpose but is a historical record.
- IBEAM's technological contributions, such as global load balancing and edge networking, are substantiated by patents and their adoption in the industry, which is a testament to their significance.
- The partnerships and roles in major streaming events that IBEAM held are a matter of public record and contribute to the notability of the company.
- While the article may source from press releases, the information presented is factual and relevant to the company's technological advancements and industry impact. Credible sources like Streaming Media Magazine provide an objective perspective on these contributions.
- Preserving information about defunct companies is crucial for historical accuracy and understanding industry evolution. The loss of sources over time should encourage us to maintain and enhance the article rather than remove it.

Given these points, the IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation article warrants retention and improvement. It provides valuable historical insight into the early days of streaming media, a pivotal aspect of today's internet. Deletion would result in a significant gap in the historical context for readers interested in the evolution of streaming technology. Nilslahr (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat a moot point, but you should probably properly disclose your COI, by the way. You can find how to do so at WP:DISCLOSE. Are you committing to fixing things up yourself or are you expecting other people to do it for you? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP: no in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Corporations have higher requirements for sources to combat just the kind of promotional content we see in this article. --Mika1h (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge select content to Williams Communications#Telecommunications as per WP:ATD and suggestion above and then Delete. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The tone of the article is entirely inappropriate and is PEACOCK and PROMO. Just the first couple of sentences alone raise the following issues:

iBEAM Broadcasting Corporation was a Media Streaming Company. Established in 1998, iBEAM was instrumental^{[according to whom?]} in the invention^{[according to whom?]} of the Content Delivery Network for Streaming Media. The company played a pivotal role^{[according to whom?]} in aiding giants^{[peacock prose]} like Real Networks and Microsoft in scaling their services.^{[according to whom?]} iBEAM was responsible^{[according to whom?]} for introducing groundbreaking^{[peacock prose]} technologies such as global load balancing, edge networking, distributed streaming, and digital data satellite delivery^{[according to whom?]}.

None of the references meet the criteria and perhaps due to the age of the company I'm unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and at least a rough consensus that the combination of noteworthy paintings of the ship as a subject and other mentions in sources suffice to provide a basis for notability. BD2412 T 00:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Lee (1831 ship)

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

Nothing on the page to suggest why this was a particularly notable whaler. Wikipedia is not a database WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That there are multiple contemporaneous paintings is a potentially good sign. Possible WP:ATD is a short partial merge to William Lee (captain). Curbon7 (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The paintings are all by the same artist, John Ward (painter) (and they could be transferred to his article's gallery). William Lee (captain) is also of questionable notability as well. I'm going to nominate him for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The linked paintings are particularly notable in their own right, enough to justify the article for context. Broichmore (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That feels like an argument of inherited notability (the paintings are notable so the ship must be..) and we don't normally give weight to that WP:NOTINHERITED JMWt (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- The article serves to provide a commentary on the paintings. Apart from these pictures, I would regard the ship as NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary, if such exists, can go in the painter's article. Otherwise, this is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia's fifth pillar holds that WP has no fixed rules; what matters is making WP useful. This article has primary and secondary sources, and includes information on the search for the Northwest Passage, the development of Hull's economy, its whaling industry, and shipping in the second quarter of the 19th century. The paintings should also be added to the gallery of pictures associated with John Ward, but transferring all the info in the article to the article on John Ward would clutter that article; transferring only a few sentences throws away information. As things now stand, someone seeing the pictures in a gallery, or in collections of reproductions of maritime painting can easily google the vessel and find out more about her and the context of her career. Equally, users of WP looking at topics that lead them to her, may discover John Ward. Wikipedia is a network, and so much more than a paper encyclopedia. Articles represent nodes, and links, categories, lists, and the like are the links between the nodes. A network gains value from the number of nodes and the links between them; removing nodes and their links degrades the network.Acad Ronin (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not following the deletion rationale here. The paintings tell us the ship is notable. Artist John Ward selected the William Lee as the central object for three paintings. It's not inherited notability. The paintings illustrate the article, but also their placement here helps give context to the paintings by informing readers about the ship, which is exactly what this encyclopedia seeks to do. There appears to be sufficient coverage in multiple, reliable sources to pass the GNG. Rupples (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG. Silly references above to "Wikipedia is a network" and similar were actively unconvincing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The arguments above are strong reasons to keep the content, but poor reasons to keep the article. If the paintings are notable, they should have articles. If the ship is relevant context to the paintings, mention the ship where the paintings are discussed, in pages about the author or the artworks. None of this demonstrates why this title should exist. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that's an argument to merge the content to a suitable article, as an AtD, rather than delete? Although, I've gone for keep, given the doubts expressed here over the notability of the ship, the next best option is I'd suggest a part content merge to John Ward (painter). Five of his paintings (out of 27) at Media related to William Lee (ship, 1831) at Wikimedia Commons are of the William Lee. If these are found to be commissions by the ship's owners (and there is a suggestion of this here,[37]) it weakens my keep notabilty argument for the ship. The paintings of the ship do nonetheless appear to form an important part of the output of the artist. Rupples (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit above conflicted with the relisting comment. Rupples (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has largely focused on paintings, but this is sourced enough that we should not be hasty without a firm belief that the sources don't demonstrate notability. The Lubbock and Credland sources sound promising. I've less of an idea how much could be in some of the others such as Barrow, Hush, and Renshaw. I will suggest keep on the presumption that this meets WP:GNG through those 5 sources. Barring consensus to keep, an ATD should absolutely be used, likely merging to John Ward (painter) —siro χ o 05:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is coverage of this ship in connection with Arctic exploration: "It appears that both the Isabella and William Lee went up higher into Lancaster Sound by at least a hundred miles than any other whaler had ever done before." (1) There's also coverage of the 3 paintings of the ship as discussed above. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have several different Merge/Redirect targets being suggested if this doesn't close as Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per @Peterkingiron, @Broichmore, @Acad Ronin, @Rupples, @Ficaia 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Broichmore et.al - wolf 09:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to Keep. The paintings themselves constitute a secondary source supporting notability of the vessel, and there appears to be sufficient other coverage to flesh out an article. ResonantDis_tortion 09:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuliya Shiryayeva

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

Following WP:NSPORTS2022, we now need to ensure that articles such as this can demonstrate that WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC can be met. My searches of Kazakh sources led me to Sports Arena, which mentions her twice in the main body and once in an image caption. Sports.kz is a squad list mention only and Pro Sports mentions her as a goalscorer and again in the squad list. None of the above are examples of significant coverage for a footballer as they do not address Shiryayeva directly and in detail. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Elephant 6. Star Mississippi 01:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Carnes

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elephant 6: No sourcing found [38] is simply a confirmation they exist. Notability seems to be around the Elephant 6 group/collective/thing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. With no new participation after two relistings, I don't think we will see additional editors weighing in here on this discussion so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Ro

AfDs for this article:

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

The notability rests on charting in the Billboard 'Hot R&B/Hip Hop Single Sales' chart, which I don't think is counted as a notable chart. It has been tagged as non-notable for more than 13 years. 2008 AfD was to merge to The Color Changin' Click but this was undone by another user, and this article doesn't necessarily need more information on this one member as it would be out of kilter with the other short biographies. Redirect effectively deletes this, but is a possible option. Boleyn (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect again to the Color Changin' Click and be done with it. There is nothing else found outside of that musical act for this person. Can you Salt a redirect so they don't create it again? Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This artist hit the Billboard charts twice (yes, the R&B/Hip-Hop charts count as a chart, by all means), and received a raft of attention in Midwest press outlets around his two hit singles ([39], [40], [41]). He's received some nationwide attention as well; [42]. Looks to meet WP:MUSIC bullets 1, 2, and 11, and possibly also 7. Chubbles (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources identified by Chubbles that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (Actually, "no consensus" comes closest to describing the outcome in Wikipedia-speak, but in fact there is a clear consensus that this is pretty well right on the keep/delete borderline.) JBW (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azanti

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

Some sources and some success, but I couldn't find enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Billboard is minimal coverage. Given the flowery language used in the Nigerian sources, I'd prefer one more good source to push this over the top. This pops up [43] but I haven't confirmed if it's the same person or not. I'll review it later, or if someone else wants to, please feel free. Almost notable... Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I debated sending this to draft or keeping it, I think it's at notability, just barely. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's close, but appears just notable enough to retain. Uhai (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broze, Chitral

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

If this is a town, it should meet WP:NPLACE. However, I could not find sources to prove it, and the sources originally added did not mention it. The creator has been banned. Boleyn (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete without prejudice to recreation with sources It's bad enough that we have to dig through all the geostubs to verify that they aren't misrepresenting their database sources (because so many are bogus), but nothing is lost by deleting those that are unsourced. It is colossal waste of time to have multiple people chasing around for sources, when it could be the one person making a sourced article, were that possible. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It exists [44], but that is hardly notable. Unsourced stub. I'd just TNT and move on. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added 4 new references to the above unreferenced article including the one (Dawn newspaper) supplied by Oaktree b above. The other 3 archived references are by the Government of Pakistan and the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. In my view, it meets WP:NPLACE now...Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent work, Ngrewal1, it does look like it meets NPLACE now. Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified as a legally, recognised populated place under WP:GEOLAND gives Broze a presumption of notability. We should be trying our best to expand the article rather than delete. Rupples (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lacked electricity as of 2018; study of urbanisation at union council level, "the Kalasha's major Joshi festival was held in Broze, Chitral during the era when Chitral was under Kalasha dominion.". Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Machine

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable exercise product. While the product definitely exists, it does not appear to be the subject of sufficient independent sigcov to pass WP:GNG. Previous deletion discussion was 18 years ago, and did not contain much reference to WP policies. Jdcooper (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Products, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's sourced to three journals, they seem ok. What's our issue with them? Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be about the science behind this commercial product, rather than the product itself (except one). Jdcooper (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think with the peer-reviewed journals, we're at least at notability. Better than some PR pieces we see here for other products. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The last journal article cited does not mention the product at all – it is actually is a note from the editorial team of the journal stating that, with respect to the first article cited, exuberance in reporting is evident along with some "cherry-picking" of the data (i.e., underemphasis of non-supporting data), non-parametic statistical analysis, or even a lack of statistically analyzed data., and that with respect to the article being published in their journal at all: Whereas Lymphology's main focus is to publish original, scientifically sound, evidence-based articles of interest to our readers, we recognize both the explosion of alternative/complementary treatment modalities used by patients and prescribed by physicians and other heath care practitioners worldwide and also the importance of informing and stimulating lymphologists and related specialists to examine and reflect on these practices. Based on this editorial I will assume that the first article cited is unreliable and not discuss it further. The second article (notably by the same authors as the first) is a primary source and so should generally not be used as a basis for biomedical content per WP:MEDRS – there are no remaining sources with which to support a claim to notability present in the article, and I cannot find any in my own search, so it does not appear the article meets GNG. I would always err on the side of removal of biomedical content which is poorly sourced anyways as it has the potential for actual harm – with the only substantive content in the article being poorly sourced removing it would leave the article with no useful information. Courtesy ping for Oaktree b, who appears to have based his reasoning on the assumption that the articles were reliable. Tollens (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We have only one source, and as laid out above, it appears to be unreliable, and the article possibly even promotional. Cortador (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Al-Shurafa

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

The article has been in mainspace for more than 90 days so cannot automatically be draftified yet there are no acceptable sources on this BLP and no indication that it meets WP:SPORTBASIC #5 let alone WP:GNG. My Arabic searches found nothing of any value. This is a trivial mention on an article covering a reserve fixture, this article states that he is increasing his intensity of training under the guidance of his father, and nothing else, and, finally, this article mentions him once in a reserve fixture match report. The article about increasing his training intensity is the only thing even close to WP:SIGCOV but, on its own, it falls some way short. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Satler

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

No evidence of WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5 here. A Google News search only yields squad listings. Likewise, further searches of Kazakh sources only give us Kaz Football 1, Kaz Football 2 and Vesti, all of which are mere squad listings too. I did see some hits in the Kazakhstan Football Federation website as well but that is not an independent source per SPORTBASIC and the hits were only squad listings. Squad list mentions are not significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ariel Rivera. ✗plicit 12:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting to Know

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

Article challenged for sources since 2009. I can't verify this Platinum album claim as PARI doesn't have this record. Strongest claim for notability so far is a passing mention here but that's it. Alternatively, redirect to Ariel_Rivera#Albums --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 08:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ariel Rivera: There's an AllMusic review, but that's all I could find and it's not enough alone. If anyone has access to a Philippine newspaper archive then that would help immensely as I doubt this was reported on in the West much, if at all, but we can't keep this without that coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ariel Rivera. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE aside from AllMusic presented above. SBKSPP (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. A close call, but there's a general agreement that the article can be improved instead of being deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dexus

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

This article is a vanispamcruftisement so obvious it would qualify for speedy deletion if it had been nominated years ago when first written. As it stands, there is no content at all in the entire article not sourced to the company's own webpage. How did this get through? jp×g 23:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Companies listed on a stock exchange are often notable, not because of the listing, but because the things they did on the way to getting listed add up to notability. That may be the case here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands, but honestly, JPxG, I'm not a fan of nominating something for deletion and then stripping out content. If it is clearly badly sourced content, as is the case here, then the article will be deleted on its merits. I would have just tagged everything as needing citations. BD2412 T 00:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: I think you are right; I'll just revert to what it was before, and everyone here can see what I am talking about. I hadn't originally intended to nominate for deletion, it was a little bit after I got through it that I realized "hey, there's nothing here!" jp×g 00:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Performing a search, the only hits I got were from their website and their LinkedIn. Fails WP:NCORP. TarnishedPath^talk 01:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Keep Changing my vote after it appears that a number of WP:RS have been added in. TarnishedPath^talk 03:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the person who started the article, I take offence at the suggestion that I wrote something that was "vanispamcrutisement". Assume good faith!. At the time I wrote the stub (2015), Dexus was redlinked in a number of articles about buildings (I think it was on a buying spree after a major capital raising) and was in the S&P/ASX 50 and most companies in that list had Wikipedia articles (which could be a notability critieria -- I don't think we have one for Australian companies). The current state of the article appears to be the work of a 2023 SPA. Personally I don't care about Dexus at all or its article that much either (although it is rather irritating to see the same redlink in a number of articles). Although it's not currently in the ASX-50, Dexus is in the ASX-200 (and most companies in that list do have Wikipedia articles). The Dexus article appears to be linked in about 20+ articles about buildings (presumably as its owner at some point in time) and various other organic links (i.e. excluding its transclusion in the ASX-200 navbox which otherwise inflates the numbers considerably). I am surprised by the comment that a search doesn't reveal anything but their own website and Linkedin (time for a new search engine?!), as it appears in the mainstream news all the time according to my Google search [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] etc. Personally I would just roll the article back to a point where it is more acceptable (or at least less unacceptable). Kerry Raymond (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kerry Raymond: Regardless of what it was when first written, by this diff it had fallen from the light of God. I mean, it really says:

We believe that the strength and quality of our relationships will always be central to our success and are deeply connected to our purpose: Unlock potential, create tomorrow. We directly and indirectly own $17.4 billion of office, industrial, healthcare, retail and infrastructure assets and investments. We manage a further $43.6 billion of investments in our funds management business (pro forma post final completion of the AMP Capital acquisition) which provides third party capital with exposure to quality sector specific and diversified real asset products. The funds within this business have a strong track record of delivering performance and benefit from Dexus’s capabilities.

I don't mean to insult your character — I refer here only to the revision which referred to the company as "we". jp×g 03:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that the current content is not acceptable, but that is not a rationale to delete the article, If it's a notability issue, delete the article. If it's a content issue, fix the content (roll back is simplest probably). Kerry (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble finding "clean" revisions; it's never had any references that weren't to the company's website, and e.g. this rev in 2016 seems like obvious UPE ("Updated in line with Latest profile", by a user whose only two edits were to that article). There are other SPAs here too, like Crowuss -- some people have said there are references somewhere else online, so if decent citations are tracked down and added I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. jp×g 03:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dexus is a major Australian property business listed on the ASX200 and was previously in the ASX50. WP:LISTED tells us that there's likely to be significant coverage of such a company as this. Investment research reports will have been written but only available for a price. It will have coverage in the financial press, maybe behind a paywall. The article obviously needs stripping back to remove the fluff. User Kerry has identified sources that need to be evaluated against WP:ORGCRIT. The only one in the list that I think might count towards notability is the last one. Articles based on company press releases and interviews with company employees don't count as they're not independent, and share price data is routine. This source may help with notability[52] if the editorial content is deemed sufficient beyond the interview quotes. The material in the company's history page[53] could form part of an expanded article if rewritten from reports in independent, reliable sources. The company's property assets page includes several notable buildings with Wikipedia articles. Rupples (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Dexus is referenced in articles on Google Scholar search. Rupples (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As expected, there's plenty of coverage in The Australian newspaper, the text of which can be found via a search in the Wikipedia Library. Rupples (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine seeing this relisted pending improvements that might change my position. BD2412 T 00:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: discussion still seems to be ongoing here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, overly promotional text has been edited out and replaced with text more in keeping with other property company articles. Verloues (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)— Verloues (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While a bunch of additional citations have been added, many of them are to questionably reliable sources: the first four are to Dexus itself, five is a corporate press release, six isn't linked so who knows. Seven is to an industry website, which has republished it from here (note that this is in their "Listings" category). Eight and nine (MinterEllison and Westfield Corporation) are also corporate press releases by companies that did dealings with Dexus. jp×g 23:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep $7+ billion market capitalisation, mutltiyear RS coverage available from business/finance press in Australia (eg Dexus CEO Darren Steinberg to step down, Mirvac, Dexus swing to losses on empty offices, Walker Corp, Dexus take out top awards, Dexus exits US and buys up in Sydney} easy pass of WP:NCORP, WP:NEXIST. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or maybe redirect to A-REIT (i.e. Australian real estate investment trust). Look, the volume of mentions of Dexus in press is massive, of the ones that have it, they pump out a dozen every month or so: there's a thousand in SMH, a couple of thousand in The Australian and AFR. Fewer in the ABC but, if we have one or two "in-depth" articles from the others that more than meets "multiple"... but in-depth is the problem here. I went through a few pages of results for AFR and The Australian, and they were pretty much all some variant of "Dexus buys X", "Dexus sells Y", "here's some senior Dexus person telling us about the economy", "here's some hirings and firings". Now, granted, I definitely haven't gone through all of the, what is probably well over ten or twenty thousand mentions, but I don't think there's any reason to believe what I did go through was not, at minimum, a representative sample. The scholarly sources are probably the only ones that might be suitable for use here, and they mention Dexus very passingly, mostly focusing on A-REITs as a whole. I cannot see a path to passing ORGCRIT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Dexus is the subject of multiple articles in national newspapers, Australian Financial Review, Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian etc so passes WP:NCORP. Further demonstrated by being one of the 50th largest companies on the ASX. Some of the cites that have been incorrectly described above as press releases are actually stock exchange announcements, e.g. from AMP and Westfield, and are highly reliable given that making an incorrect or misleading statement to the ASX is illegal. Lincosige (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think reliability should have been raised as an issue here, that's just confused things. The key factors are depth (WP:ORGDEPTH), and independence (WP:ORGIND). Announcements, and the usual articles based on those announcements, fail those two criteria by such wide margins that it's hard to say what a hypothetical article might cover. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The general notability guidelines have been met. https://www.reuters.com/markets/dexus-swings-first-loss-14-years-higher-rates-crunch-property-values-2023-08-16/ and https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/dexus-snaps-up-apn-to-boost-24b-funds-platform-20210511-p57qrn.html show ample coverage in reliable sources about this company. Many other news articles appeared when I clicked the link at the top of the AFD to search for them. Dream Focus 04:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: I did say earlier I would withdraw the nomination if sources were found and notability established. I did not have a lot of faith, due to nearly the entire history of the article being UPEs, and the sources thitherto being commensurately weak. But these Reuters and SMH sources you have found really do seem to put us over the threshold. I admit I have not been paying close attention to this page due to being otherwise occupied, but I dare say you picked a rather roundabout method of pinging me to this discussion. I will !vote to keep now. jp×g 🗯️ 10:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steffen Handschuh

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

Handschuh's main claim to minor fame is that he shot exactly one goal in his exactly one game for Stuttgart - if there's any chance you might ever participate in a VfB trivia quiz, be sure to memorize that. Unfortunately, that fact is not quite interesting enough to get a lot of press attention: Here's an interview with 11 Freunde magazine, here's the solution to Stuttgarter Zeitung's question of week 47/2012, and that's the extent of what I could dig up. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Maliner (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omni Broadcasting Network

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG as a defunct television network. Let'srun (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage of the company here [54]. I think it'd be a miss for the encyclopedia to having nothing on this topic, so I'll recommend a partial merge of a paragraph or two to KSSY-LP as it was verifiably the sole station owned by this company, and the company is therefore part of that station's history. —siro χ o 05:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the original author of this article, and found significant coverage of the subject in Variety, Bloomberg, and David Blevins' 2006 book on US and Canadian television networks, three sources which are independent of the subject. Additional sources come from the company's own FCC filings and significant newspaper coverage (multiple states). That the company is defunct is of no import: subjects are presumed notable due to media coverage, not whether they are still in operation. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do have their points with the fact there was sufficient information that can be considered reasonable for the article existence. And given that there was some decent information found, despite the fact this network no longer exist, it should be kept. 20chances (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable enough to be relevant.

TheBritinator (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Carmel Christian School

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. or sources for other schools of the same name such as ones in Nigeria, Virginia, etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Pennsylvania. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lavalizard101, consider using the Wikipedia Library to search news sources. A search on newspapers.com provides access to many sources that are both WP:SECONDARY and reliable. An examination of these may provide significant coverage to pass the general notability guideline, which is the relevant guideline for schools. (see WP:NSCHOOL). It's a little work, but should probably be done as part of your research WP:BEFORE nominating an article for deletion. If you have questions about how to access, feel free to hit me up on my talk page. Thanks! — Jacona (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your edit here [55] added the wrong url. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must respectfully disagree with your assessment that this article fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG) and constitutes original research (WP:NORG). Without more specifics on which aspects you feel fail to meet guidelines or constitute original research, it is difficult to address your concerns. High schools are generally considered notable per WP:GNG, as explained in the Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) page. Independent sources that meet WP:GNG can usually be found for government-run and even the smallest private schools.

In addition to the current sourcing that includes references to establish notability, additional sources, dating back five decades to 1974, can readily be gathered from regional newspapers online. Emperorian125 (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Weak Keep- due to the school starting in 1974 we will find more offline coverage for this school than online coverage. But there is just enough references from reliable sources to keep the article. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources in the article plus those available at newspapers.com are sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG. Jacona (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have revert a close by a IP due to failing WP:NAC's experience criteria and being blocked for vandalism -- Sohom (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Animation

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

unnecessary creation for a category of nomination that does not have a substantial or reliable reliable coverage the article is made of primary sources and most of the information is already included in International Emmy Kids Awards and awards by year articles see 1st International Emmy Kids Awards subsequent articles. Similar nominated for deletion article are

FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Awards. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into International Emmy Kids Awards, suitable placement of the content. ✗plicit 13:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
already included in List of International Emmy Award winners#Children & Young People FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there should be an article about the rewardm otherwise the list isn't notable PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list is not the one put for deletion. Please just read the nom FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a list article, so it has to meet our Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. This article meets these guidelines:
- The subject, International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Live-Action, is notable.
- Individual list items do not have to notable but they do have to be reliably referenced. They are referenced to the Emmy awards site.

International Emmy Kids Awards, mentioned above, is a poor merge target: it does not list any award winners. Instead, it just links to this and other subcategory lists.

Another article, List of International Emmy Award winners, lists winners only and excludes nominees. It has a Kids: Animation section but for winners only. Currently, List of International Emmy Award winners lists several hundred winners only (no nominees) across about 40 current and former categories; it's already a long article. The article we're discussing for deletion contains the names of both the award winners and the nominees. If we merge this list, International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Animation, to List of International Emmy Award winners, we either have to expand the big list to include nominees going forward or we have to delete referenced useful content (nominees) from International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Animation during the merge.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of International Emmy Award winners#Kids: Animation, fails WP:LISTN: the list topic hasn't been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The Deadline and Variety refs in the article are just listings not significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:NLIST, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. As correctly noted in the nomination, nominees are covered in articles for each ceremony, but a reader interested in a specific category benefits from this list format more; as such, this list has a reasonable informational/navigational purpose. (If only one or two years were covered, that would not be the case, but that's moot here.) Also, many other award categories have their own articles even if they are usually discussed in the context of yearly award ceremonies, not on their own, and are reliant on primary sources; see Template:TCA Awards, Template:Critics' Choice Movie Awards, Template:ESPYs, and Template:Hugo Awards for examples. (The last one is a featured topic, for what it's worth.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list easily passes WP:NLIST Everything that needs to be sourced is. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Emmy Kids Awards (all three). All fail NLIST, sources that lists the award noms and promo is not a substitute for WP:IS WP:RS actually discussing this as a group or stand alone topic. // Timothy :: talk 19:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article meets WP:LISTPURP as both informational and navigational, and is largely made up of blue links. NLIST states: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Let's not force our readers to jump between 8 or more articles to get information like this. —siro χ o 05:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ~~a hypothetical List of International Emmy Kids Award winners and nominees~~ International Emmy Kids Awards; there's not nearly enough secondary source coverage for any given category to justify having these as independent articles, but they do seem to be discussed as a group. Occidental Phantasmagoria (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Occidental Phantasmagoria, articles can't be Merged into hypothetical articles, only existing articles. You can create it though and editors can see whether or not it would be a suitable Merge target article. But just mentioning a nonexisting article will not cause it to come into being and that's not an action a closer can take. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To Liz point, @Occidental Phantasmagoria International Emmy Kids Awards exits FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, nearly evenly divided between editors arguing for a Keep vs. those advocating a Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Factual & Entertainment

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

unnecessary creation for a category of nomination that does not have a substantial or reliable reliable coverage the article is made of primary sources and most of the information is already included in International Emmy Kids Awards and awards by year articles see 1st International Emmy Kids Awards subsequent articles. Similar nominated for deletion article are

FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into International Emmy Kids Awards, suitable placement of the content. ✗plicit 13:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a list article, so it has to meet our Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. This article meets these guidelines:
- The subject, International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Factual & Entertainment, is notable.
- Individual list items do not have to notable but they do have to be reliably referenced. They are referenced to the Emmy awards site.

International Emmy Kids Awards, mentioned above, is a poor merge target: it does not list any award winners. Instead, it just links to this and other subcategory lists.

Another article, List of International Emmy Award winners, lists winners only and excludes nominees. It has a Kids: Factual & Entertainment section but for winners only. Currently, List of International Emmy Award winners lists several hundred winners only (no nominees) across about 40 current and former categories; it's already a long article. The article we're discussing for deletion contains the names of both the award winners and the nominees. If we merge this list, International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Factual & Entertainment, to List of International Emmy Award winners, we either have to expand the big list to include nominees going forward or we have to delete referenced useful content (nominees) from International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Factual & Entertainment during the merge.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of International Emmy Award winners#Kids: Factual & Entertainment, fails WP:LISTN: the list topic hasn't been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The Deadline and Variety refs in the article are just listings not significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:NLIST, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. As correctly noted in the nomination, nominees are covered in articles for each ceremony, but a reader interested in a specific category benefits from this list format more; as such, this list has a reasonable informational/navigational purpose. (If only one or two years were covered, that would not be the case, but that's moot here.) Also, many other award categories have their own articles even if they are usually discussed in the context of yearly award ceremonies, not on their own, and are reliant on primary sources; see Template:TCA Awards, Template:Critics' Choice Movie Awards, Template:ESPYs, and Template:Hugo Awards for examples. (The last one is a featured topic, for what it's worth.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list easily passes WP:NLIST Everything that needs to be sourced is. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Emmy Kids Awards (all three). All fail NLIST, sources that lists the award noms and promo is not a substitute for WP:IS WP:RS actually discussing this as a group or stand alone topic. // Timothy :: talk 19:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article meets WP:LISTPURP as both informational and navigational, and is largely made up of blue links. NLIST states: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Let's not force our readers to jump between 8 or more articles to get information like this. —siro χ o 05:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ~~a hypothetical List of International Emmy Kids Award winners and nominees~~ International Emmy Kids Awards; there's not nearly enough secondary source coverage for any given category to justify having these as independent articles, but they do seem to be discussed as a group. Occidental Phantasmagoria (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please only propose existing articles as Merge or Redirect target articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, nearly evenly divided between editors arguing for a Keep vs. those advocating a Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Live-Action

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

unnecessary creation for a category of nomination that does not have a substantial or reliable reliable coverage the article is made of primary sources and most of the information is already included in International Emmy Kids Awards and awards by year articles see 1st International Emmy Kids Awards subsequent articles. Similar nominated for deletion article are

FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into International Emmy Kids Awards, suitable placement of the content. ✗plicit 13:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a list article, so it has to meet our Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. This article meets these guidelines:
- The subject, International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Live-Action, is notable.
- Individual list items do not have to notable but they do have to be reliably referenced. They are referenced to the Emmy awards site.

International Emmy Kids Awards, mentioned above, is a poor merge target: it does not list any award winners. Instead, it just links to this and other subcategory lists.

Another article, List of International Emmy Award winners, lists winners only and excludes nominees. It has a Kids: Live-Action section but for winners only. Currently, List of International Emmy Award winners lists several hundred winners only (no nominees) across about 40 current and former categories; it's already a long article. The article we're discussing for deletion contains the names of both the award winners and the nominees. If we merge this list, International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Live-Action, to List of International Emmy Award winners, we either have to expand the big list to include nominees going forward or we have to delete referenced useful content (nominees) from International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Live-Action during the merge.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of International Emmy Award winners#Kids: Live-Action, fails WP:LISTN: the list topic hasn't been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The Deadline and Variety refs in the article are just listings not significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:NLIST, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. As correctly noted in the nomination, nominees are covered in articles for each ceremony, but a reader interested in a specific category benefits from this list format more; as such, this list has a reasonable informational/navigational purpose. (If only one or two years were covered, that would not be the case, but that's moot here.) Also, many other award categories have their own articles even if they are usually discussed in the context of yearly award ceremonies, not on their own, and are reliant on primary sources; see Template:TCA Awards, Template:Critics' Choice Movie Awards, Template:ESPYs, and Template:Hugo Awards for examples. (The last one is a featured topic, for what it's worth.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list easily passes WP:NLIST Everything that needs to be sourced is. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Emmy Kids Awards (all three). All fail NLIST, sources that lists the award noms and promo is not a substitute for WP:IS WP:RS actually discussing this as a group or stand alone topic. // Timothy :: talk 19:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article meets WP:LISTPURP as both informational and navigational, and is largely made up of blue links. NLIST states: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Let's not force our readers to jump between 8 or more articles to get information like this. —siro χ o 05:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ~~a hypothetical List of International Emmy Kids Award winners and nominees~~ International Emmy Kids Awards; there's not nearly enough secondary source coverage for any given category to justify having these as independent articles, but they do seem to be discussed as a group. Occidental Phantasmagoria (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Occidental Phantasmagoria can I ask you cast your vote also at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Factual & Entertainment and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Animation. I did not know how to "group AfD" FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, nearly evenly divided between editors arguing for a Keep vs. those advocating a Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Minimal participation after several relists, and the one new post-relist commenter added little to the discussion. RL0919 (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023 Mayo shelling

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

I don't think there is enough coverage (see WP:SIGCOV and WP:EVENTCRITERIA) to warrant an article and not just a paragraph at Mayo, Khartoum and Battle of Khartoum (2023) (which already exists). We just merged Battle of Omdurman (2023), which had relatively more coverage than this, see Talk:Battle of Khartoum (2023)#Proposed merge of Battle of Omdurman (2023) into Battle of Khartoum (2023) FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Sudan. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The shelling at Mayo was, at the time, the largest single-event death toll since the war began, and several articles mention it as an independent incident within the battle of Khartoum instead of a footnote like other shellings throughout Omdurman and Khartoum. This al-Youm article, this Daily Sabah article, and the Guardian report cited in the article all heavily discuss the shelling. Jebiguess (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

maybe it is worth it to have a look at WP:EVENTCRITERIA, as this single event does not meet any of the criteria related to notability, first for not receiving coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle (WP:CASESTUDY) and the event did not receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable (WP:DEPTH.

Btw there were a shelling in Mandela the same day, another in Kalakla on 24 April 2023, around Yarmouk munitions factory, and many hospitals were also shelled. Saying it is the "the largest single-event death toll since the war began" is a bit of a stretch as up to date there is now official death toll and the estimate death for the event is between 17 to 18 or maybe 27, and just on the 3 Sep 2023, 20 were killed in air raid South of Khartoum, At least 51 people were killed by an SAF airstrike on the Gouro market in Khartoum, 32' people were killed by SAF shelling in Ombada, Omdurman, At least 45 people were killed by SAF airstrikes in Nyala, 30 people were killed during clashes between the SAF and the RSF in El Fasher and 25 people were killed in fighting in Omdurman. all just in September FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- per Jebiguess PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just refuted all of Jebiguess arguments. So please clear why you think their argument still valid when I pointed out its problems especially the existence of similar one events. Please cite a policy to your argument

Wikipedia is not democracy btw and these AfD are considered debates so you cannot just upheld a refuted vote without explanation FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a redirect/delete combination‎. Delete some, redirect others per this comment and sub thread. I will delete the relevant ones. I'm leaving the redirects for editorial handling as it isn't clear whether all targets exist. (I may need more coffee) Star Mississippi 14:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeżew PGR

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

Mass created article by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user Kotniski.

Also nominated:

"PGR" stands for Państwowe Gospodarstwo Rolne, or "State Agricultural Farm". Every one of these was therefore a farm, not a village/settlement per se. In every instance but one these are a simple duplicate of the article related to the village they were in.

The exception is Potworów PGR (literally "Monsters PGR"). There is nothing at the location in this article but a wide expanse of forest - though of course Google Maps loyally shows Potworów PGR as a location in the forest, as a result likely of scraping data from Wikipedia. I suspect this may be a hoax, though there is no PL Wiki article that might shed more light on this.

With the exception of those sites for which a pro forma translation into another language is displayed, all of these articles are cited very generally to the TERYT database, though it is not clear how that supports these locations.

Even if these could be found on the TERYT database, the appropriate notability standard for a state farm is WP:NORG, which these manifestly fail.

In every case the original Polish article that Kotbot procedurally-generated these articles out of has already been deleted or redirected. It is not clear why EN Wikipedia should continue to host them.

Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:NGEO. WP:CORP. FOARP (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FOARP, you might have listed these additional articles in your deletion nomination but none of them are appropriately tagged. I haven't checked to see if they were actually all created by a bot but if there is a human editor involved, they should receive a notification. Right now, this discussion only concerns Jeżew PGR. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up Liz, yes, I had forgotten to tag the other articles - tags added now. I can confirm that these were all created by Kotbot, a bot that was deactivated more than ten years ago (but still has an active bot-approval according to their page? Yeah, that should probably be removed just for security's sake if it really is still active) , operated by Kotniski, an editor who quit in 2012. FOARP (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, looks like everything is up to code now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (support some, object to others). Object to deletion of the ones that have separate articles on pl wiki and claims of presence in TERYT, those need stand-alone discussion. That means pl:Klejwy (Klejwy), pl:Ołownik (osada), pl:Cieleśnica-Pałac (that one seems clearly notable, setting aside the PGR association that is not even mentioned on pl wiki, mini-WP:TROUT here, FOARP, seems deserved - that's what happens when you start doing mass noms (trash, trash, trash, error, go back...). pl:Holeszów (osada) is the last one I object to (it has an unreferneced small history section on pl wiki). For others, I am fine with deletion.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Piotrus - we already have articles on Klejwy, Ołownik, Cieleśnica, and Holeszów.

If there is any information that needs keeping, it can be merged to them. However, I do not see any sourcing either here or on PL Wiki that actually supports anything to add to these articles. TERYT possibly has listings for osada that are part of these villages, but there is nothing to indicate that these are the same as the state farms that used to operate within the same villages - if there is a need for an article, it won't be under these titles or contain any of the same information. The same is true of the palace. FOARP (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be ok with redirecting those articles there, as I concur there is no stand-alone notability that is currently obvious, and also the PGR in the names is not always official, per TERYT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also OK with redirection in those cases as an ATD. For Cieleśnica Palace I agree that an EN Wiki article is warranted - I'll see if I can do one in coming days based on this and this. Reading the history, I'm not sure the PGR was at the palace - communist-origin sources talk about the palace being converted into a "place for architects and cultural workers", and later the Palace became owned by the PGR and used as a club of some sort, though who knows what the truth actually was. FOARP (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: - just a ping to say that Cieleśnica Palace is now an article. BTW - looking at the area of the palace you see the kind of harm these inaccurate articles cause on widely-used websites like Google Maps which scrape data from Wikipedia - the ENTIRE area, including ALL of the street-names, are labelled "Cieleśnica PGR", a name that properly belongs to absolutely nothing in that area since the state farm there shut down decades ago. You can simply look at the road-signs leading in to the area and the address of the local museum to see that the locals simply refer to this as "Cieleśnica" and probably wonder why they have this weird name on Google Maps and elsewhere. Indeed, Wikipedia may have essentially wished a place into existence since inevitably the locals will use addresses that can be easily found by delivery drivers/taxis etc. on Google maps. FOARP (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP I wonder where does the Google Map PGR error originates, since wikidata entry I link below has the English name (and Polish) correctly at Cieleśnica-Pałac, not some PGR. Minor note on errors: that I fixed the interwiki (or to be clear, deleted the connection). Cieleśnica Palace which you created is notable, but it is not the same as the village pl:Cieleśnica-Pałac which has no en wiki article right now (pl wiki does not have a separate article about the palace yet). Note that I've restored the pl wiki link at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3270790). Cieleśnica PGR should be moved to Cieleśnica-Pałac, assuming this is the village (or deleted if the PGR entity is some TERYT error). Pinging Polish experts: @Stok, @Malarz pl, @Aotearoa so that we can figure if that PGR article needs to be renamed (if it is about the Polish village) or deleted (if it is about a non-notable PGR)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: - To make things easy for the closer, unless anyone else comments here, would it be fair to summarize where we've gotten to here as:

Delete - Jeżew PGR, Zalesie PGR, Jawory PGR, Potworów PGR, Ostrowy PGR, Torzeniec PGR

Redirect to respective village - Klejwy PGR, Ołownik PGR, and Holeszów PGR.

Waiting for Stok - Cieleśnica PGR.

Is that a fair summary? FOARP (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More or less. Since nobody I pinged from pl wiki seems to have time or will to comment, I'll ping few more folks in case anyone cares to offer a useful comment here. @Mathieu Mars @Azemiennow @XaVi PROpolak _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zalesie PGR, Jawory PGR, Potworów PGR, Ostrowy PGR, Torzeniec PGR

Redirect: Klejwy PGR, Ołownik PGR, and Holeszów PGR

per FOARP. Many thanks to FOARP and Piotrus for their work on this. As for Cieleśnica PGR - I'll support what you two finally decide.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the articles in question were created by a bot, it is likely that the non-existent populated places were described due to database inconsistencies. It would be tough to establish otherwise as Kotinski has already quit. However, let's leave the ones that are present in pl.wiki and can be verified in TERYT. May redirects be created if you prefer so, I am not gonna insist. Mathieu Mars (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathieu Mars - Thanks for responding. Just to be clear on this, none of these are present in PL Wiki as articles - they've all been deleted or redirected there. FOARP (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I meant: if for any of them the redirect exists in pl.wiki, we should exclude such an article from deletion by leaving it or turning into redirect. Should've been more precise. Mathieu Mars (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by Disney XD#DXP programming. Don't really see any objection to the redirect or to not having the page. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Attack (TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 13:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, cites no sources Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Disney XD#DXP programming as an ATD; honestly I don't even remember this existing. Nate • (chatter) 00:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also just realized that the redirect is stupid because of it being rendered as "D|XP"...removing the pipe. Nate • (chatter) 22:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dosage Index

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

Not sure this is true as it has been unsourced for 15 years and the link right at the bottom seems to be about dogs. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs clean up but subject appears to be notable: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2824166126/506A75FF7EB44502PQ/4, https://www.proquest.com/docview/435747286/506A75FF7EB44502PQ/5, https://www.proquest.com/docview/278484622/506A75FF7EB44502PQ/11, etc. - Indefensible (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Admittedly, the article needs work including simplifying, presentation and referencing, but there's significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable, independent sources in newspapers and books on horseracing via a Google Books search plus the web, so clearly passes the GNG. Rupples (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Further sources for consideration: [56], a critique [57], [58] Google Book search results [59] Rupples (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sourcing critiques from the Delete comments are very plausible, as spot-checking confirms many of the sources are passing mentions. The Keep commenters did not highlight any substantial coverage as rebuttal. RL0919 (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Wharton

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, lacks independent reliable sources. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as having played significant roles (not lead) in various notable films that received coverage, as the guideline requires. (His presence in the films is verifiable)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO/NACTOR. No WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth with BLP level sources. 22:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep. He is a notable actor who acted in notable films. SreeNi310817 (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no in-depth, significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources as TimothyBlue stated above. I'd like to see more than just the TVGuide source. The TVGuide source is a list of credits and roles, which is not in-depth, significant coverage. The other sources in the article are mere passing mentions and a WP:BEFORE search doesn't convince me that this subject passes GNG. Tails Wx 19:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes NACTOR: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films. Flurrious (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. No additional work has been done on the article so if those advocating Delete have found existing sources don't merit GNG, editors arguing Keep would help their position by providing links to those sources they believe indicate SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs a clean-up, but he meets WP:NACTOR and is notable enough to have their own article.

TheBritinator (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, GNG and NACTOR. His credits do not include notable films. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, although the films he has appeared seem notable, his roles in them are not significant, only supporting roles that haven't been noted as notable by reliable sources. --Mika1h (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No editors except the nominator provided substantial support for deleting, while the two editors supporting keeping did not respond to the nom's doubt about the sources provided. With one delete comment from a very new editor and one neutral vote, the most accurate description of the result of this discussion is NC. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Basecamp

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. Independent coverage of the organization is extremely fleeting, with virtually no coverage outside of unbylined pieces that serve as vehicles for the organization's founders and supporters to talk about themselves (e.g. [60], [61]). Searching online lead me to more of the same kind of uncritical, fleeting coverage. Searching on Scholar, I found brief critical coverage in a source of dubious reliability ([62]) and articles by individuals affiliated with the organization, but nothing that simultaneously meets the criteria of independence and significance. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Switzerland. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe there is enough coverage to merit inclusion: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rainn-wilson-changes-name-raise-awareness-climate-change/, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-38659323, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/22/davos-2020-meet-the-climate-activists-camping-in-the-cold-at-davos.html, https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/davos-climate-change-roundtable-youth-activists-941166/. - Indefensible (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these add up to NCORP:
- Rainn Wilson changes his name... - includes no information about the subject other than On behalf of environmental advocacy group Arctic Basecamp, "The Office" star posted a video discussing the worldwide impacts of weather shifts in the Arctic.
- Inside Davos summit's Arctic basecamp This one does begin to count towards NCORP, but is light on independent analysis.
- A Rolling Stone Roundtable with the youth climate activists... Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for political topics WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. Beyond that, the piece is also light on independent analysis.
- We cozy up like little sardines... - borderline in terms of whether it has enough independent analysis to contribute towards notability, non-attributed text about the subject is limited to Six global youth climate delegates have chosen to stay at Arctic Basecamp in Davos this year, with two more youth volunteers set to help the crew with logistics. Basecamp is a unique science-solution outreach platform pushing for urgent action on climate change from political and business leaders.
This isn't the level of independent analysis that is needed to support an article about an organization. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree for deletion. Coverage is not significant and it is difficult to understand tangible activities of this organization apart from self-promotion. Eagle.Jeff (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde _{[trout needed]} 22:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG per the existing sources in this discussion and the articles from Bloomberg and Vice SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still on the fence at the moment. Vice is probably one of the better ones so far, so thanks to SailingInABathTub for providing it, but Bloomberg is substantially composed of quotes. Whiteman can likely qualify under PROF though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. While this is leaning delete, there isn't sufficient consensus here to execute a delete (largely driven by low participation). No prejudice to immediate re-nomination if desired. Daniel (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers (Jukebox the Ghost album)

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

BLAR was undone, but the article doesn't look any better. The Washington Post interview (not a review so also inappropriately placed in the ratings box) only mentions the album for two sentences, and other than that and the PopMatters review, I'm unclear that any of the sources are reliable (I've particularly seen Prelude Press called outright unreliable before). If, ultimately, that means the article is basically relying on just PopMatters for notability, then that'd be the same grounds that I BLARed on in the first place. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Washington, D.C.. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One song reviewed here [63], I don't think that's enough. I can't find anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM, did some editing and added a review, plus previously present notability through other online articles. Also, why is this in AFD for Washington, D.C.? Koopastar (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of the new sources you added:
- Hashtag Magazine is a single-author page which is essentially a blog except by name, and that page in particular looks like a press release.
- Melodic.net has potential given it has multiple writers, but without an about/staff page showing if there's an editorial team, it's hard to give an automatic pass.
- On The Soundboard Reviews, I could only find one review out of the couple dozen I checked which weren't written by the site's founder. That's only a small step above Hashtag, and not the most promising.
- And Throw the Dice and Play Nice is explicitly a single-author blog, so that's a no.
I'm still not convinced this isn't just stretching for notability, something most notable album articles shouldn't have to do nearly this much. As for the Washington, DC question, sometimes it can be useful to tag AfDs for their subject's country of origin because there may be local coverage which is only accessible locally. In cases like this, I wouldn't usually bother including it because US coverage tends to be more widely available, but there are some editors who will show up and add it anyway just because they can, so I put it there when I remember just to preempt that. It might still be useful in some cases, though I can't say I've ever seen it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining the DC thing. As for the article, Melodic.net does have a staff page, and I've removed Throw the Dice and Play Nice as it sources an already cited subject. Hashtag Magazine is replaced with an antiMusic article, and although both are identical in contents, the newer source has somewhat of a staff compared to a single author so more reliability can be established. Koopastar (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does help Melodic.net's case. I thought I clicked on the contact button but I guess I didn't.

The reason the text in Hashtag Magazine and antiMusic's articles is identical is because it's an unedited press release, which is all that antiMusic posts. With this one in particular, you can see the "(BMG)" at the start of the article giving credit to the band's record label for writing it. That makes that a primary source which does not support notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source for that part of the article wasn't intended to establish notability, simply confirm a release date that could be questioned. The source for the next sentence does show some notability of one of the singles though, and with the current state of the article it seems there are about 8 or 9 independent sources about the album with a good level of reliability (going off the staff page criteria as the other sources do not have this instantly accessible). Would this amount of coverage be adequate for notability? Koopastar (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would be made quite sad if this weren't notable ("Victoria" is an absolute bop, and I quite like the band's music), but I do largely agree with the nominator here. The WaPo piece may well provide significant coverage of Jukebox the Ghost as a band (and even of the HalloQueen tour), but it's a bit marginal on coverage of the album itself. Looking for other sources, there was a 30 minute radio segment, but much of it is taken up by JtG's music or by Ben Thornewill's own speaking, and that isn't exactly an independent source on the album. More on (HalloQueen can be found; there's a nontrivial change that it's notable, but that isn't the article here).
The PopMatters review seems to contribute towards notability; PopMatters is listed as generally reliable at WP:RSMUSIC. The problem is that WP:NALBUM#1 would require multiple independent RS to significantly cover it, and I'm a bit iffy on most of the other sources that are claimed contribute towards notability. There's a ginormous article in Atwood Magazine on this album, but I'm not 100% on its independence, and it's not listed at WP:A/S. It does, however, seem to have a good number of writers, so I don't want to discount it. If it's sufficiently independent, I would lean towards keeping. Otherwise, however, I'd be unconvinced.
Aside from sources that are in the article, there's Glasse Factory, but it's on the single rather than the full album. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde _{[trout needed]} 22:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Derzhinsky

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

Derzhinsky participated in 2 football matches a few years ago before disappearing from the professional scene. The best sources found in Russian were the hyper-local Bryansk News, which is a single trivial mention of him, and Russian Futsal Association, which is not an independent source and, in any case, the source is an extremely brief interview with the subject containing no independent analysis whatsoever. There is no indication that he meets WP:GNG nor that he is on the trajectory to do so. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mbdfar (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Nelson

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

Poor quality sources, does not appear to pass WP:NBIO. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Dance, and Nigeria. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Disputed draftification, Sources are not WP:RS. Appears to be a bit player in K Pop videos. Muscular and agile, he fails WP:BIO. Should not be returned to Draft. Vanity piece. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://ngr.korean-culture.org/en/298/board/247/read/80065

https://dailytrust.com/meet-dance-instructor-teaching-nigerians-k-pop/

this two links are from government reliable links connecting to korean embassy nigeria 119.69.67.29 (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brief coverage doesn't help.Oaktree b (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
more longer biography citations have been added@Oaktree b [64]

[65]

[66] 119.69.67.29 (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)— 119.69.67.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Celebjam and gossipnext door are click bait sites, I'm sorry, but they aren't reliable and can't be used for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 1 is ok, but we'd need more like that. I can't find any other sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Physical: 100 check the contestant list on the wikipedia page for physical100 119.69.67.29 (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)— 119.69.67.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Being named in a list doesn't help. We need long articles that talk about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i will attach another link that covers the biography of the subject of the page https://koreabyme.com/miracle-nelson-of-physical-100/

https://www.realitytitbit.com/netflix-reality-shows/miracle-on-physical-100-is-a-korean-dancer-being-fiercely-rooted-to-win Namgung hahyun (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC) — Namgung hahyun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep page more longer biography citations have been added and info page has edited properly

https://gossipnextdoor.com/miracle-nelson-bio-age-girlfriend-height-physical-100/

https://celebjam.com/gossip/miracle-nelson-bio-age-girlfriend-height-physical-100/?amp=1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.69.67.29 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)— 119.69.67.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Neither of the references above are even close to being reliable (they also are almost identical in wording which points to paid-for clickbaity churnalism). Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• ~~keep page~~ the links were replaced with some other Link and and was well sourced for . Namgung hahyun (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

struck vote There is a strong probability, confirmed in the editor's talk page, that they already offered a !vote to keep while logged out. One editor, one formal !vote 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any sources remotely suitable for a BLP. I suppose it's possible to redirect as well, but the content is also potentially unsuitable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Network

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

Fails WP:ORG. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Organizations, Computing, Internet, and California. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tis is not advertising, and it would be wrong to delet it, edit maibe, to help infoem users and potential users about the topic. Delition would only lead people to inform themself from the wrong side of the internet, it would be rather harmful. 89.137.109.34 (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— 89.137.109.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Cabayi (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete because this article is written poorly and is seemingly made by a paid editor is extremely biased and promotional •Cyberwolf• 12:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and as Pi exists right now it has no basis for requiring a wiki page. CULTUS AMAZE (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should remain cause sooner or later this network will most likely grows bigger and popular. It is WP:Relevant. What it needs, is rephrasing and copyediting. 182.183.0.254 (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this moment this network is not notable enough to have an article we can not assume that it would do something •Cyberwolf• 15:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cyberwolf. I see your point, but given its user base of more than 100 million, with 50 million actively engaged as Pioneers, It is quite noteworthy.

Here is my draft for the article:

Proposed draft by User:182.183.0.254

The lead section:

Pi Network is a decentralized cryptocurrency project that was founded in 2019. It aims to provide a user-friendly platform for everyday people to mine and transact the Pi digital currency. Unlike traditional cryptocurrencies, Pi Network does not rely on energy-intensive proof-of-work (PoW) mining, making it more eco-friendly. It allows users to mine the cryptocurrency on their mobile devices, with minimal impact on device performance.^[1]^[2] The Pi cryptocurrency is currently unlisted and has no historical data on its performance since it has not yet been launched on any cryptocurrency exchange.^[3]^[4]

The Background section:

The recent surge in popularity of cryptocurrencies has led to the emergence of various digital assets, with Bitcoin, Ethereum, and others gaining significant traction. Pi Network was conceived in 2019 as an attempt to offer a more accessible and energy-efficient cryptocurrency.^[5]^[6] Founded by a team of Stanford University graduates Nicolas Kokkalis and Chengdiao Fan, Pi Network's objective was to create a cryptocurrency that could be mined on everyday devices, such as smartphones, without the need for specialized hardware or substantial energy consumption.^[7]^[8]^[9]

Creation and launch section:

Pi Network was created by Dr. Nicolas Kokkalis, Dr. Chengdiao Fan, and Vincent McPhillip, with the initial whitepaper being published in March 2019. The project was officially launched in March 2020, introducing a mobile app that allowed users to mine Pi by simply confirming their identity and engaging in a daily mining session. The network's testnet and mainnet phases have followed, focusing on security, scalability, and user engagement, paving the way for wider adoption.^[10]^[11]^[12] In April 2021, Pi released its Pi wallet and browser.^[13]

Pi Network is still in its early stages, and its creators have not yet revealed the number of coins in circulation or the maximum supply. The Pi cryptocurrency is currently unlisted and has no historical data on its performance since it has not yet been launched on any cryptocurrency exchange. However, Pi Network has undergone several milestones in the past year, including the launch of Pi Bridge, which enables data to move across networks and allows Pi holders to transit between them freely.^[14]^[15]^[16]

Users who mine Pi are referred to as "pioneers." The network has gained significant popularity, with over 50 million participants from around the world spanning 209 countries or regions.^[17]

And if needed, Differences from Bitcoin section:

Bitcoin operates on a Proof of Work (PoW) blockchain protocol, whereas Pi Network uses the Stellar Consensus Protocol.^[18]
Bitcoin operates as a decentralized digital currency, while Pi Network focuses on accessible mining through mobile devices.^[19]
Bitcoin mining relies on computational power for security, while Pi Network utilizes a mobile mining approach with lower energy consumption.^[20]
Pi Network uses a referral system where users earn more coins based on the number of people who register with their invitation code.^[21]

References

^ Kashettar, Swathi (May 29, 2023). "How Does Pi Network Work?". Analytics Insight. Retrieved October 26, 2023.
^ Henn, Peter (April 6, 2023). "What is Pi Network?". Capital.com. Retrieved October 26, 2023.
^ Gupta, Siddhant (2019-09-16). "Stanford grads develop cryptocurrency for smartphone users to increase its accessibility". The Stanford Daily. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
^ Hope, Utulu (August 21, 2023). "The Growth of Pi Network: 100 Million Users". BSC News. Retrieved October 26, 2023.
^ Beckh, Joachim (February 26, 2021). "What is "Pi"". Linkedin. Retrieved October 26, 2023.
^ "How Many Users on Pi Network?". Forex.in.rs. February 26, 2021. Retrieved October 26, 2023.
^ Gupta, Siddhant (2019-09-16). "Stanford grads develop cryptocurrency for smartphone users to increase its accessibility". The Stanford Daily. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
^ "Pi Network". Forbes Digital Assets. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
^ Willing, Nicole; Henn, Peter (2023-04-06). Medleva, Valerie (ed.). "Pi Network price prediction: What is PI?". Capital.com. Retrieved 2023-08-14.
^ "Pi Network". Forbes Digital Assets. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
^ "Pi Network Price Prediction 2023-2027". Changelly.com. Retrieved October 26, 2023.
^ Henn, Peter (April 6, 2023). "What is Pi Network?". Capital.com. Retrieved October 26, 2023.
^ "Pi Network Price Prediction 2023-2027". Changelly.com. Retrieved October 26, 2023.
^ "Pi Network". Forbes Digital Assets. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
^ "Pi Network Price Prediction 2023-2027". Changelly.com. Retrieved October 26, 2023.
^ Henn, Peter (April 6, 2023). "What is Pi Network?". Capital.com. Retrieved October 26, 2023.
^ Hope, Utulu (August 21, 2023). "The Growth of Pi Network: 100 Million Users". BSC News. Retrieved October 26, 2023.
^ "Bitcoin vs Pi Network: Computational Power vs Energy-Efficient Mobile Mining". CoinDCX. June 29, 2023. Retrieved October 26, 2023.
^ Hope, Utulu (June 6, 2023). "Pi Network vs. Bitcoin Network: A Comparative Analysis". BSC News. Retrieved October 26, 2023.
^ Hope, Utulu (June 6, 2023). "Pi Network vs. Bitcoin Network: A Comparative Analysis". BSC News. Retrieved October 26, 2023.
^ Daly, Lyle (June 8, 2022). "What is Pi Network & Cryptocurrency Coin?". Retrieved October 26, 2023.

I hope other can improve it further. 182.183.0.254 (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also delete this because most of the sources used are Linked In, forex websites, and crypto websites such as changeally and BSC news. The author purposefully ignored these non-crypto sources: Pi Network under investigation for fraud in Vietnam and this website JJPTR founder Johnson Lee announces a new "pi coin" money-making scheme. and JJPTR创办人李宗圣疑重出江湖　跑透全马宣传虚拟货币交易 (use google translate). Cerevisae (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think then we can add the above mentioned info in the "Controversy" or "Legal Issues" section. 182.183.0.254 (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and spam and only sources are crypto or forex Isla 🏳️‍⚧ 11:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It should remain as it has been mentioned by independent newspaper: The Stanford Daily, American business website: Forbes, media property: Yahoo! Finance as well as by financial company The Motley Fool and other sites like Analytics Insight.

The proposed draft above is also written in a WP:Neutral and non-promotional manner. 182.183.0.254 (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even Filecoin and Zcash and Litecoin have their own dedicated articles. 182.183.0.254 (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asoz Rashid

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

Subject fails WP:GNG as most of the references are about iQ Group or passing mentions. CNMall41 (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Iraq, and United Kingdom. CNMall41 (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated the thing for G11, it remains fundamentally promotional and there is no notability here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple notable sources, there is payment disclosure on the user page. Fina80 (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem very notable and a lot of it is written like a promotion.

TheBritinator (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vysakh Reetha

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

Subject fails WP:FILMMAKER. Some sources do not constitute significant coverage as he is mentioned in passing while the rest are not reliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Malaysia, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:FILMMAKER not passing till now Worldiswide (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Law and Order characters#Cyrus Lupo. (non-admin closure) Clyde _{[trout needed]} 22:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Lupo

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

Sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Law & Order characters. Spinixster (chat!) 07:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 07:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list. This is just a plot summary, nothing here suggests GNG is met. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sphere Media

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

Disputed draftification. References are PR, Press releases, typical PR churnalism. WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, and Canada. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In light of Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines, I advocate for the retention of the article on Sphere Media. Below are the arguments substantiated by the criteria outlined in the guidelines:

1. Significant Coverage:

Sphere Media has received significant coverage in reputable industry publications including Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, as demonstrated by the detailed mentions of its partnerships, awards, and notable productions. This coverage goes beyond trivial mentions, addressing Sphere Media directly and in detail, fulfilling the criteria of significant coverage.

2. Reliable Sources:

The sources cited in the article are recognized and reputable within the media and entertainment industry, thereby meeting the criteria of reliable sources. The editorial integrity of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, among others, allows for a verifiable evaluation of Sphere Media's notability.

3. Independence of Sources:

The cited sources are independent of Sphere Media, not being produced by the company or individuals affiliated with it, aligning with the criteria that sources should be independent of the subject. This independence further substantiates the notability of Sphere Media as the coverage is not self-promotional or derived from press releases or other non-independent materials.

4. Secondary Sources:

The article predominantly relies on secondary sources which provide an objective evidence of notability. These sources delve into the history, achievements, and operations of Sphere Media, thereby giving a well-rounded view of the subject without necessitating original research.

5. Multiple Sources:

A variety of sources have been utilized to establish notability, not just relying on a single publication or author, in line with the guidelines that multiple sources are generally expected to establish notability.

6. Depth of Coverage:

The coverage provided in the cited sources is extensive, discussing various aspects of Sphere Media, from its historical evolution to recent notable achievements and partnerships. This depth of coverage is indicative of the subject's notability, as it reflects a substantial level of attention and detail provided by independent, reliable sources.

7. Awards and Recognition:

Sphere Media has been honored with significant awards like the Peabody Award, Canadian Screen Awards, and Banff World Media Festival awards, which are well-documented in reliable sources. These accolades further underline the notable contributions of Sphere Media to the media and entertainment industry.

8. Potential for Improvement:

Even if the current state of the article may not meet Wikipedia's stringent standards, the notable nature of Sphere Media as demonstrated by the significant coverage in reliable and independent sources indicates a solid basis for the article's retention and improvement rather than deletion. According to Deletion is not cleanup, if the topic is notable, efforts should be channeled towards cleaning up the article to meet Wikipedia's standards instead of opting for deletion.

In conclusion, the article on Sphere Media aptly satisfies the general notability guideline as stipulated by Wikipedia. The significant, reliable, and independent coverage across multiple secondary sources substantiates the notability of Sphere Media, warranting the maintenance and further improvement of this Wikipedia article. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 08:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you verify all these claims (for example the one about the Peabody award) with reference to Reliable Sources that are not Press Releases. Thank you. JMWt (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Further improvement' can and should indeed follow the initial publish, but notability must be there from the outset; we do not publish articles on non-notable topics in the hope that one day something will come to be known which demonstrates notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated to remove the press release. The information is all cited. For instance, the Peabody Award is supported by the Peabody website. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 14:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources are primary and/or routine business reporting and/or passing mentions, none of which establishes notability per WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whilst it is clear that some severe pruning and tidying is necessary (please learn how to cite your references properly..) there seem to be sufficient RS to show notability. JMWt (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete pending an analysis of sources. This article was obviously written either by paid editors or by would-be paid editors. (Ultras, fanatical editors, don't write about companies.) The most blatant example of obviously commercial writing is The company's operations continue with a balanced approach towards project development, with around 20 active projects at any given time, half with broadcasters and half being developed internally.. It will not be sufficient to delete that sentence, because this is a textbook example of an article that needs to be blown up and started over. This will be the recommended disposition if the source analysis finds that the sources support corporate notability. If the sources do not support corporate notability, it will be changed to Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Review of the sources has shown that they are largely press releases, interviews, and profiles, as well as coverage of a Peabody Award for Sort Of (TV series).

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	sphere-media.com	Corporate web site	No	Yes	Not applicable	No
2	www.c21media.net/screenings/spheremedia/	A profile on a web site of profiles	No	Yes	Not applicable	No
3	https://www.c21media.net/news/tvokids-orders-project-rube-from-sphere-media/	404 error	No	No	No	No
4	www.animationxpress.com	Access blocked by anti-malware	Probably no	?	No	No
5	tbivision.com	Reads like a press release	No	No	Yes	No
6	www.animationxpress.com	Same as 4. Access blocked by anti-malware	Probably no	?	No	No
7	playbackonline.ca	A press release about the company - Appears to be a web site that displays press releases	No	No	Yes	No
8	www.hollywoodreporter.com	A press release about a minority interest in the company	No	No	Yes	No
9	variety.com	An interview with a producer	No, an interview	Not really	Yes	No
10	variety.com	Passing mention of an award. The award does not appear to be a major award and does appear to be an industry vanity award	Yes	No, passing mention	Yes	No
11	playbackonline.ca	Another press release about what appears to be a vanity award	No	No	Yes	No
12	playbackonline.ca	Another press release, about the Peabody award to the film "Sort Of"	No	Not about the company, only about the film	Yes	No
13	peabodyawards.com/	Short article about the Peabody award	Yes	Not about the company, only about the film	Yes	Yes
14	ctr.utpjournals.press	404 error	No	No	No	No
15	www.tv-eh.com	Begins "From a media release", about screenwriting award	No	Not about the company, only about the film	Yes	No
16	glaad.org	A very long list of awards	Yes	No, passing mention	Yes	No
17	playbackonline.ca	404 error	No	No	No	No
18	broadcastdialogue.com	About the Banff World Film Festival	Yes	No, passing mention	Yes	No
19	variety.com	An interview with a producer - Same as 9	No, an interview	Not really	Yes	No
20	variety.com	An interview with a producer - Same as 9	No, an interview	Not really	Yes	No

The sources about Sort Of (TV series) establish the notability of the series, and we already have an article on the series. The article is about what the company says about itself, and the references are about what the company says about itself. The most positive thing that can be said about the references is that 13 of them are reliable (only 7 of them are broken), but reliability of sources is a necessary rather than a sufficient condition for notability. The independent sources are not significant coverage, and the sources that provide significant coverage are not independent sources. The long statement citing almost every known Wikipedia policy and guideline is what would be expected of a paid editor who, unlike many paid editors, actually has read Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Knowing what the policies and guidelines are is good, but it doesn't mean that either the article or the sources address corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I diagree with your assessment of the sources. Here's my breakdown:

Website	Independent	Reliable	Secondary Source	Explanation
Sphere Media	No	N/A	No	Corporate website, not assessed for reliability.
C21Media	Uncertain	Uncertain	Uncertain	Profiles and industry news, unclear editorial independence.
Animation Xpress	Yes	Likely	Yes	Covers industry news and trends independently.
TBI Vision	Yes	Likely	Yes	Industry journalists provide global TV business insights.
Hollywood Reporter	Likely	Yes	Yes	Reputable industry publication with a long-standing history.
Playback Online	Yes	Likely	Yes	Owned by Brunico Media, appears independent.
Peabody Awards	Yes	Yes	No	Independent award organization.
Canadian Theatre Review	Yes	Yes	Yes	Independent publication.
TV-Eh	Likely	Likely	Likely	Run by Greg David, a seasoned TV critic with extensive experience in the television industry, including a teaching role at George Brown College.
GLAAD	Yes	Yes	No	Non-profit organization focused on LGBTQ advocacy and cultural change.
Broadcast Dialogue	Yes	Yes	Yes	Voice of Canada’s broadcast industry since 1992, providing news, analysis, and insights.
Variety	Yes	Yes	Yes	Premier source of entertainment news, providing expert analysis and commentary on the entertainment industry.

T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 19:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My reason for initial draftification was per Robert McClenon source analysis above. Welp, here we are. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Robert's assessment of the sources, the subject fails WP:NCORP. Jumpytoo Talk 03:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Robert McClenon has done a thorough assessment of the sources. In fairness to those voting keep, I went through and reviewed the references in the assessment and agree 100%. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. David Gerard (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bitget

AfDs for this article:

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

There are plenty of sources, but they appear to be unreliable, PR, or blogspam. Not seeing in-depth coverage in reliable sources that would indicate that this company meets WP:GNG, or meets WP:NCORP. Previously deleted this July (2023). —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Companies. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn't been much change in terms of coverage useful for our notability standards since July. There is such a major gap between any of the available sourcing the type of coverage which would be eligible to establish notability under WP:NCORP, that the refbomb would be strongly indicative of such eligible sources not existing were I to assume the ability to differentiate. Even without that, it is still additional evidence thereof by a number of factors. Additionally, while the tone is not quite entirely promotional throughout to the point of meeting WP:DELREASON#4, it is nonetheless not suitable for an encyclopaedia, which also demonstrates the difficulty of basing an article on the questionable sources available. This is thus delete from me. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the additional comments. I have since updated the content to help improve the article.

WP:NCORP When I first drafted this article, I felt I had included significant coverage for a 5 year old company in emerging tech. I noted that the previous article contained press releases and primary sources so I researched independent sources that meet the reliable source standards for this new article.

RELIABLE SOURCES I have included tech blogs and articles from premium media that may require access via paywall. They don't appear to be sponsored and are written by independent finance or tech writers. The sources I reference also have detail and are not merely announcements or mentions of Bitget.

REFBOMB. The article is readable. Citations are only used to substantiate the content. Where needed, I have added multiple sources but have not added them for basic statements.

For me it's a keep. WPweb3 (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which are the "premium media" sources you had in mind? The most reliable sources cited are SCMP, Bloomberg, and Axios, but none of those do anything more than mention Bitget in passing. They do not have any in-depth coverage of the company; not even a full sentence of coverage. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Ganesha811, yes SCMP and Bloomberg to name a couple but now added printed publications also based on research papers sourced. You can see depth in content, not just single mentions. WPweb3 (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not peer-reviewed publications, they are "studies" and "surveys" conducted by Bitget itself. Even given that, the new sources appear to have little in the way of in-depth coverage. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) We have established that the sources I have cited are 1. independent; 2. reputable; 3. secondary (some sources have significant coverage of Bitget's primary study's but I have not referred to primary sources for studies. Are you suggesting the reason for deletion is because I am missing significant coverage? The articles I recently added all cover the article subject with eg. more than a single sentence. I am referring to other tech companies like IBM for standards, interestingly they are citing primary research directly. Thanks for your feedback. WPweb3 (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we" in "we have established"? I disagree with all your points. It doesn't seem likely we'll persuade one another, so I will hold off on any further comments and let the discussion run its course. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Disappointing to see how quickly this was recreated after the first AFD decision to Delete. This AFD might close differently but this should have gone through AFC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly promotional, but might have enough notability to be worth keeping. There are over 1000 results for the subject on ProQuest (although many of them might be press releases). - Indefensible (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"might have enough notability" isn't helpful in an AfD discussion. Are you able to point out any specific references that show this meets notability guidelines? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I reviewed first nom, the article, and this nom and I agree with arguments in first nom and Ganesha811's arguments here. The REFBOMB is all unreliable, PR, spam. There is nothing that changes the result of first nom. Could be deleted as G11 or G4, or even G5, the user that created the first deleted article is blocked for socking, this is likely a recreation by a sock. Tehonk (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References are all cryptoblogs or press releases. I find nothing that would be significant coverage in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @CNMall41 I created this article and I reviewed all the sources via my library research database, ensuring none of them are press releases or company-sponsored. The only ones that may seem like press releases are the ones from third parties relating to their Messi and Juventus sponsorships. Examples of notable citations include the ones from Fortune [2], Bloomberg [3], South Morning China Post [35-36], CCData is a third party market report [15], Nikkei Asia [21], Bangkok Post [29]. Have you read these citations? Some are behind a paywall. These are all in the list of Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Again, I am trying to see the advertising tone/ spam you are referring to - I don't see how my article is "blatant advertising". I have written with no opinions, just facts or what the independent sources have stated and nonjudgmental language with sources that are not just passing mentions.

Also, sorry G4 and G5 do not relate to me. I will continue to work on my other articles but yes Fintech is one of my interest areas. WPweb3 (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about the promotional tone (although it does have it). My comment is strictly based on notability. Just because something is in a reliable source does not meet it counts for notability. I have been quoted in many publications related to healthcare tech but I would come no where near qualifying for a page. It is all about the depth, not just existing. I have looked at the references on the page and also looked for additional online. Unfortunately, my assessment that this does not meet notability guidelines wouldn't change. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 The promotional tone was in response to @Tehonk and I refer to Wikipedia definitions to promotional tone of which my article is not. During this Afd, I am trying to continue to improve the article so I am asking for your feedback on specific areas in my article that you think fall into this category.

Examples from Forbes [3], Bloomberg [4], CCData [15], Bangkok Post [29] are all reporting specifically on the article topic and top industry peers - not passing mention, not just a single quote. It's technology not historical subject so sources are not all scholarship or printed publications. Thanks all for your comments but I would be grateful for more specifics to help improve this article. WPweb3 (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just being in a reliable source doesn't mean that the reference itself establishes notability. It must be compared using WP:SIRS. The sources do not meet that requirement. Also, above you were asked about the "we" in "we have established." Can you address that question? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Yes, I meant "we" as in this thread. However you disagree. I've tried to show that all the citations are:

1. significant coverage - as per my above comment. Eg. Forbes is not a profile or writer from Forbes Contributor and meets all 4 notability requirements.

2. independent - I am and the article is written independently from article subject. Happy to answer any questions you have around this.

3. reputatable - global news sources. They may not be all be Western but I try to write with diversity and inclusion in mind. Reference to tech blogs - I have triple checked and they are not self-published sources are written by a tech or finance writer/ journo.

4. secondary - with the exception of the proof of reserves data all are not primary

To avoid any grey areas that contributors may deem as promotional or trivial is their sponsorship of esports events. WPweb3 (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the context of the Forbes article? Is it about Bitget or does it mention it in context with something else? See WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, one is Forbes.com and the other is Forbes Advisor UK and they both write about Bitget specificities. The UK Editor article has multiple reports on Bitget in the cryptocurrency sector, over a number of months. WPweb3 (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree. The article may be notable, but I'm far more concerned on the fact that a good amount of it appears promotional and the sources are not reliable. I would think this article fails WP:NCORP.

TheBritinator (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please highlight for me which areas are promotional? WPweb3 (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is a topic you care about, but please try to avoid WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. I've fallen into that trap before myself, and I know how easy it is to do. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams of India

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

No refs on the page to show notability, I don't see other RS that have covered the topic. JMWt (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Radio. JMWt (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus among established editors is that sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 01:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Obohwemu

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

I think it fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR, it looks like there were a lot of promotional stuff cleanup done in the article but still it doesn't look like notability was proven to me. Tehonk (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nigeria. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Proquest is finding two reviews and an interview with bio for his novel Twisted on AllAfrica.com (Twisted - a Must Read. AllAfrica.com 19 Feb 2015 & Twisted Celebrates Nigeria's Exploits in Print [opinion]. AllAfrica.com; Washington. 08 Mar 2015. & Writing Is My Passion - Author of Twisted AllAfrica.com; Washington. 05 Mar 2015.). I don't know anything about how usable AllAfrica is as a source for this kind of thing, though. I also worry that two different subjects of this name are being conflated here; the author of the vaccination article seems to be based at the University of Sunderland in the UK, though the subject might have moved. Nothing obvious on Proquest for his other novels. ~~Leaning~~ Delete unless reviews of his other works can be found, as well as sorting out whether the two profiles are actually the same person. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looks like they are the same person, but the article has been gutted for sourcing issues, and now barely hangs together. The subject does not appear notable under WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re AllAfrica: it is a reposter of African newspapers. The "Twisted Celebrates Nigeria's Exploits in Print" piece appears to actually be from Vanguard (Nigeria) [67], for which see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 414#Vanguard (Nigeria): "The chief concern among editors is paid, promotional, and sponsored content by the newspaper, some of which is not explicitly marked as so." —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, from my past experience it appears to aggregate content some of which is reliable and some of which is not. It's even harder to tell the difference when Proquest has stripped out the original source. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it's relevant to the discussion, but I was just curious to know why you think the subject might have left the university. Nicola247 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just thought I'd mention that there is a lot of sockpuppet activity on this article. I don't know whether it is sufficient for CSD G5 but many of the most active editors were blocked over the weekend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse, I believe the edits of MrsSnoozyTurtle have invalidated G5 since the socks are not the only primary editors of the page. Primefac (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MrsSnoozyTurtle mostly removed promotional material. I don’t think that’s “substantial contribution “ in the spirit of G5. In other words their net <250 char contribution, according to the tool, should not invalidate G5. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"net contribution" appears to be Max. text deleted 2023-05-08 08:11 • MrsSnoozyTurtle • -8,125 which in my mind counts as substantial edits by others (from WP:G5). Primefac (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a little vexing since G5 does require that an article have no "substantial edits" by other editors, but does that effectively reward sock-using COI editors, if another editor recognizes their advertising and tries to remove it? In this case regarding the contributions of MrsSnoozyTurtle, here they are: first requesting speedy deletion under G11 (advertising!) [68]; then tagging referencing, COI, and verifiability issues [69][70], then removing passages of text with referencing problems [71][72][73], and finally deleting unreferenced claims in the infobox and removing an "advert" tag per their cleanup just completed [74]. Do we have leeway here under the G5 rubric? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've contested G5s in the past because good-faith editors had done copy editing or added sources, but here I'd be happy to discount MrsSnoozyTurtle's edits, none of which contribute substantial material. The rubric might need discussion to clarify this issue. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. G5 eligible or not, this should be deleted. NAUTHOR requires multiple reliable independent significant reviews, which is not the case here. The article currently has just one review. The Twisted review from Vanguard (published in 2015) is an advertorial. Consider its line here: ‘Twisted’ is a blockbuster novel that spans three genres: mystery, suspense and romance. It is devoid of offensive language, crassness, obscenity and extreme vulgarity such that the younger audience could explore its contents without their guardians expressing fear of untoward effects (neither quoted or attributed). Compare this with how the author himself advertised the book on Linkedin in 2014, ‘Twisted’ is a blockbuster novel that spans three genres: mystery, suspense and romance. It is devoid of offensive language, crassness, obscenity and extreme vulgarity such that the younger audience could explore its contents without their guardians expressing fear of untoward effects. I am highly surprised that the content for this is exactly the same and not even paraphrased at all. More lines that are completely identical includes Nigeria has the second largest newspaper market in Africa (after Egypt) with an estimated circulation of several million copies daily in 2003. The line from Linkedin: The novel is unique for its incredibly complex plot is also especially thinly arranged to: The novel is unique for its incredibly complex plot, a suspenseful story, with remarkable twists and turns. in the Vanguard article. As such, the article is not a review but an extremely thinly paraphrased and in some cases exactly identical press release/advertorial from a marginally reliable website. Otherwise, the current article is in very poor shape, and there is no other sourcing I can find to GNG/NAUTHOR. The subject also fails other NPROF criteria and the citations are very low. So delete. VickKiang (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly as an IAR G5 speedy, because I'm sure MrsSnoozyTurtle had no intention of preventing deletion with their edits. But also because the analysis above makes clear that the Vanguard review is unreliable, I'm also unconvinced of the reliability of the "Readers' Favorite" review, and even if we could count both of them we would have only two reviews for one book, below my usual standard for WP:AUTHOR. Beyond the sockpuppetry, the promotional pattern of editing isn't really a reason for deletion, but it doesn't help. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the review on Vanguard. It is independent and reliable. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Reading Beans: The Vanguard "review" is substantially identical to an earlier advert by the author himself in 2014, the year before when Vanguard article was written. If they are basically all identical (see my rationale above on the exactly same lines), I don't understand how it is still independent. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang, with your analysis, it is clear that the author of the review copied part of a promotional blurb for his review. I didn't vote because I added a notability tag prior to the nomination. It is now clear to me that it should be deleted. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a lot of this from Vanguard lately. Might me time to talk about changing it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources Nswix (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For lack of SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a review by Chris Fischer of Readers Favorite which I found on the author's current page: https://readersfavorite.com/book-review/twisted/2 and another for Frozen by ebook Cover Design Awards: https://www.thebookdesigner.com/e-book-cover-design-awards-march-2015/ It is my belief that these reviews are independent and reliable.EvaRey (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC) — EvaRey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just to add to my previous comment... Rather than rely on personal opinions or conjectures, I would suggest that the Admins find out exactly how Readers Favorite and TheBookDesigner.com go about their reviews, just to be sure there's no influence from authors in their review process. This will help establish credibility, independence, and reliability. I think it's important we establish the facts of the matter so the Admins can make informed decisions. EvaRey (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Final comment- the above "award" is from a self-publishing website. At the bottom, it says Copyright selfpublishing.com All Rights Reserved. © 2023. VickKiang (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think other reviews of this subject's works exist: http://donovansliteraryservices.com/october-2014-issue.html. From the discussion so far, emphasis has been on the subject's books (RE: Twisted). Looking through his current page, I can see other notable feats. He was chairman of Association of Nigerian Authors in Kogi State. He founded the Association of Nigerian Student Authors. He won the University of Sunderland's 2022 Three Minute Thesis Competition, and perhaps other notable achievements that are not currently on his page. Perhaps we should consider updating his page with more information, rather than outright deletion.Nicola247 (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC) — Nicola247 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I believe the subject’s vaccination research could be of public interest, especially as COVID-19 has refused to go away. His milk fluoridation research could also be a valuable resource, as is his research on sexually transmitted infections. Scholars, students, and the general public could benefit from his profile and similar people who have advanced the knowledge and understanding of their respective fields. The administrators should think about adding material to his page, as it is evident there is more to the subject than what is currently there. I believe his page should remain because his profile can help disseminate information to a wide audience.KimiBee (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC) — KimiBee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, primarily to inform those editors arguing Keep that your claims can't be considered unless they are supported by reliable, independent secondary sources. Would those advocating Delete look over the sources brought into this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would such obvious socking have any impact on an AfD at all? Tehonk (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than attacking the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument, could the Admins please advise editors to focus on the substance of the argument itself? Could the Admins please remind everyone of the need to avoid ad hominem argument, to avoid taking an accusatory tone, to assume good faith and remain civil? Could we also be reminded of the need to stop dismissing other editors' arguments as irrelevant? EvaRey (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of obvious socking going on but no substantial evidence of notability under WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. There are a couple of papers in gscholar by the subject related to childhood vaccinations but they have zero citations. Nsk92 (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nothing to see here. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I appreciate the diligence of editors/admins in maintaining the accuracy of Wikipedia content. It's essential that we provide a balanced, factual and unbiased view of the subject matter. However, an editor's claim that the subject's vaccination research "zero citations" is inaccurate. The research in question has indeed been cited by multiple other researchers, which signifies its importance within the academic community. For reference purposes, see the citations on Google Scholar, PubMed, Research Gate, Semantics Scholar, to mention but a few. If you have reservations about the subject’s vaccination research, which was published by Cambridge University Press, please feel free to discuss them, and everyone can work together to address them appropriately.Ozianamayioza (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC) — Ozianamayioza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I can't see any citations in this list. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

There are clear and obvious citations of the subject's vaccination research. If the above direct links are not working on your browser, try typing the title of the research on Google Scholar, for example, and click search. Use the same approach for other databases. You will find that the research CERTAINLY has citations. For a discussion of this nature, it is imperative that we provide a balanced, factual and unbiased view. Ozianamayioza (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is worth a look at the talk page and (all very recent) contribution history of Ozianamayioza. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
The incessant accusatory tones are not helping anybody. Wikipedia is for everyone, not a select few. Ozianamayioza (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appears to be misinformation from editors about this academic. One editor suggested that the subject has left the university, without providing any source or evidence to corroborate his claim. He opined that the subject might no longer be involved in higher education and as such should not even be considered an academic in the first place. The researcher’s milk fluoridation research was published by the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health last month (September 2023), and it is evident from the publication that he is still active in academics at the University of Sunderland. Another editor is saying that the subject’s vaccination research has “zero citations” on Google Scholar. Such misinformation might mislead other editors and sway the minds of innocent bystanders. I think it’s important we stick to facts, avoid bias and avoid spreading half-truths. Or is there an agenda that some of us are not privy to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicola247 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To pass WP:PROF, academics are only required to meet one of eight criteria. For Criterion 1, the person's research should have made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. When evaluating whether this criterion is satisfied, Wikipedia suggests that we use Worldcat to consider how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries. For the academic in question, this information is found here. This academic seems to meet this criterion. MukhtarAbdul (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC) — MukhtarAbdul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. There are reviews of the subject's work on Reader's Favorite Book Reviews and Midwest Book Reviews. The subject's milk fluoridation research and other relevant information are currently not on his profile. The natural next step should be for us to update his page, rather than delete it.KimiBee (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of the criteria for WP:PROF is for the person to have been a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellowship status as a highly selective honor. The subject seems to have been awarded Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA) and Fellowship of the Royal Society for Public Health (FRSPH).Sophie9870 (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC) — Sophie9870 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
FHEA is the second-lowest of four membership levels, not a selective honor. FRSPH is open to anyone with an advanced degree or five years of work experience, not a selective honor. There are many different types of things called "fellowships"; these ones are not the type described in WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Espresso Addict and David Eppstein's reasoning. There isn't much indication that the subject is notable as an academic or author and the the lack of WP:SIGCOV by independent, reliable sources tells us the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reading Beans's !vote -- Reading Beans understands Nigerian sources and separate legitimate articles written in Nigerian journalist's flowery style vs. pay-for-play articles in the same major publications.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to approach discussions about a group of people or a profession with fairness and avoid making sweeping generalizations or engaging in discriminatory statements. Accusing Nigerian journalists, or any group of journalists, of employing "pay-for-play articles" is pointblank discriminatory. It's essential to remember that journalism, like any field, has a wide range of professionals with diverse ethics and standards. If you have concerns about the ethical practices of journalists or media outlets, it's better to address them based on specific instances and provide evidence to support your claims. Engaging in constructive dialogue and promoting responsible journalism is a more productive approach than making blanket statements that may perpetuate stereotypes and discrimination. Nicola247 (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In case there's any doubt, the citation record does not support a pass of WP:PROF even in my (generally generous) estimation. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. No evidence this passes PROF in any way, I don't see any sourcing that has WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. The above KEEP votes did a complete BEFORE and they were not able to list any sources which address the subject directly and indepth.. // Timothy :: talk 19:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The accounts in this afd that I just blocked are Confirmed to each other. I haven't looked much beyond the direct connections, so more may be to come --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ara Paiaya

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

all sources insanely trivial mentions. all others found were similarly trivial. ltbdl (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As required by the guideline, he has played an important role (mostly, directing) in the creation of at least one notable film having received coverage. His role as director is noted (in general negatively) for various films (examples: [75], [76], etc.) if that was necessary. (those mentions are generally not extensive but that is not necessary in this case)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@mushy yank: what guideline? ltbdl (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DIRECTOR -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched one of his films (Night Driver) on Amazon Prime (UK). Isn't availability of his material on that platform enough to make him notable? REVOL 17:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by REVOL (talk • contribs)

No. Notability is determined by multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject giving signicant coverage. -- Mike 🗩 19:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Promo about a movie, Subject name listed, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	1. "Mickey Rourke joins Traffik". Screen Daily.
Promo about a movie, Subject name listed, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	2. ^ "Mickey Rourke, Daryl Hannah, Eric Roberts to Star in 'Skin Traffik' (EXCLUSIVE)". Variety. 13 August 2013.
Sony, fails WP:IS	3. ^ "Skin Traffik: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment". Sony Pictures.
Sony, fails WP:IS	4. ^ "Instant Death: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment". Sony Pictures.
About a movie, Subject name listed, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	5. ^ "First look: Tough guys take over 'Skin Traffik' poster". USA Today.

A name being listed does not meet WP:SIGCOV. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS, with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and INDEPTH. // Timothy :: talk 08:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - B-movie professional but has enough cover to support in my opinion. https://www.proquest.com/docview/334022315/D4AF1923232B48FCPQ/17, https://www.proquest.com/docview/1693478955/D4AF1923232B48FCPQ/20, https://www.proquest.com/docview/334090449/D4AF1923232B48FCPQ/8, https://www.proquest.com/docview/328440351/D4AF1923232B48FCPQ/5, https://www.proquest.com/docview/339476412/D4AF1923232B48FCPQ/4, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2765662491/Record/D4AF1923232B48FCPQ/2, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2785550373/D4AF1923232B48FCPQ/1 - Indefensible (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PrepInsta Technologies

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

This article reads like an advertisement and sources that might show notability are substituted for articles about the sources that would demonstrate that. It was previously in the AfC project but was denied 3 times before being moved to mainspace manually. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 15:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, Websites, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ I'm highly unimpressed by the AfC bypass after multiple declines, but the subject has received significant coverage in multiple sources, and appears to be notable. I just did a pass of the article to remove as much advertising and unreliable sources as possible — the prose is a mess, but at least we don't have a possible G11 deletion on our hands. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TechnoSquirrel69, which sources meet WP:NCORP/SIRS? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: The DNA, Forbes India, and The Hindu articles look like they show that the subject is notable. They all look reliable, and discuss the company in enough depth for me to call it significant coverage. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I appreciate the new sources raised here, they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It is difficult to tell a sponsored post from an earned post on Forbes India, but DNA is clearly marked as being written by "DNA Web Team" and The Hindu marked as written by "BL Bengaluru Bureau" which are sponsored posts. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so that's why those three sources looked like they contained a lot of overlapping material. I hadn't considered that they might have been sponsored press release clones. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CNMall41's rationale above. Assuming the DNA and The Hindu sources are unreliable, the subject no longer meets any notability guidelines. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69:, The NEWSORGINDIA references are sometimes difficult to spot as they are never clearly marked. The U.S. has laws which require publishers to mark everything that is an advertisement, but I do not believe similar laws exist outside the U.S. For the overlap, that is also a clear sign as you will find similar pieces posted in the same publications listed in NEWSORGINDIA, all within months (or even days) of each other. Check images as well as the captions will often say "photo supplied by [insert name of company here]." This can indicate a PR campaign. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notes, CNMall41 — the help is greatly appreciated! I'll keep this information in mind for future reference. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Antogonist

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

Fails WP:GNG, did not find significant coverage of this musical project. TheLonelyPather (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I will userfy it for you, not tonight as it is 1 am but tomorrow. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mochiru Hoshisato

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

The article only cites personal blogs and primary sources. Plus, none of the author's works have an article, so I don't see a particular reason to keep the article. Xexerss (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Xexerss (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add the references from the corresponding article in the Japanese Wikipedia at ja:星里もちる. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of importance. Bensci54 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete; I'm not sure this person does not meet WP:NAUTHOR since they have no notable works (at least in English; their only work with an article was redirected here at AfD), though one of their works did get a TV drama adaptation in 2019, this work does not have an article. As far as WP:GNG is concerned, the Japanese article has only one source and it's a primary source and a WP:BEFORE search in Japanese only found coverage of his manga. Link20XX (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it's decided to delete this article, please userfy it for me. Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Liz: Please go ahead and close this discussion. There's only one !vote to keep it, and the article's really not in a good state, and I don't think keeping the discussion going is going to change anything. Please userfy it for me, too. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surabhi Tiwari

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

Tagged since May, does not appear to meet the notability criteria. While researching it, I noticed it was speedy deleted from hiwiki twice as spam and not notable. I mean it's their native language after all, even if they think she's not notable, then I guess she's not notable. Tehonk (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Film, Television, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shihab Thangal Charity Trust

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

Bringing this to AFD as a redirect to Syed Muhammedali Shihab Thangal was objected by the creator. The article fails WP:NONPROFIT. The primary sources include press releases and local coverage about some charity works did by them. Thilsebatti (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added translations of the titles of the Malayalam-language newspaper articles used as references. The Hindu is a national newspaper, and there is also international coverage from the Saudi Gazette. I think that the coverage adds up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If 2 reliable sources aren’t enough to establish notability then I don’t know what is. So keep per WP:GNG Nagol0929 (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yep, looks to meet WP:GNG. Tollens (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Republic TV. Star Mississippi 13:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Republic Media Network

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

Earlier Republic Media Network was redirected to the Republic TV page due to the majority of its information and citations being identical. Moreover, there is a separate category page for Republic Media Network, found under Category:Republic_Media_Network. Currently, this category is entirely adequate, having a separate page is unnecessary. Charlie (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Charlie (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, Creating a separate page is unnecessary. Mr. Rasel Hasan (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why? TruxtVerified (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to distinguish between categories and articles. A category serves as a grouping mechanism, while an article provides in-depth information. Republic TV, under the operation of Republic Media Network, warrants its own article. Just as with Star channels having their dedicated article like Disney Star and Zee channels like Zee Entertainment Enterprises, these articles comprehensively detail company information, such as funding, ownership, owned channels, and historical context. TruxtVerified (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my concern about the nomination to delete the article on Republic Media Network. It's important to maintain a fair and open discussion, but I believe that the article should be kept on Wikipedia. The network is a significant part of contemporary media, and it's important to provide accurate and balanced information about it for the readers. Let's ensure that the discussion focuses on the quality of evidence and adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely, TruxtVerified (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, User:TruxtVerified

This article should be kept. It is an important article. 103.170.55.189 (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:INHERITED, WP:USEFUL. Spinixster (chat!) 11:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Republic TV: Much of the content is about, and duplicated, with the Republic TV page. What's little left can be merged into there as "sister" properties. Not enough sources to support this as a stand-alone article as they focus mainly on Republic TV or one of the related properties. Ravensfire (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your perspective, and it's important to consider that some readers might find value in having a separate page for the Whole Republic TV Network. Additionally, the presence of separate pages for other channels like News18 (Network 18) within their respective networks could be used as a reference point for supporting the existence of this page. TruxtVerified | [Message] 14:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde _{[trout needed]} 22:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preserving this article is justified as the reasons provided do not appear to be valid grounds for deletion or merging. It's important to respect the diverse viewpoints that contributors bring to the table. However, it's worth noting that this page focuses on the Republic TV company and its network. @Ravensfire , it might be helpful to understand the distinction between the two articles. This page offers comprehensive information about all the channels within the network, which is consistent with the practice of having separate articles for channels within other networks, such as Network 18. TruxtVerified | [Message] 14:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this article is a duplicate of the Republic TV article. Merging them with a section in that article with the small amount of non-duplicated information retains the information. Duplicating large amounts of text in multiple articles is not helpful from a maintenance perspective and gives a far broader scope to at least one of the articles than it should have. Ravensfire (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To put a bit more behind my thought here. Most of sources focus on Republic TV by name, very few mention Republic Media Network. There were a couple, but closer examination showed they were press-releases disguised as news articles (sponsored / paid articles). Another is Republic World which is deprecated as a source. This needs to be based on sources that have significant coverage of the article subject - Republic Media Network, and are independent from the subject. That's not here. Lost of stuff about Republic TV, hence the merge !vote. Ravensfire (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to maintain a friendly and collaborative atmosphere on Wikipedia. Our primary goal is to expand and improve articles, especially those related to India. We are all contributors with a shared interest in enriching the platform's content. Let's remember that constructive discussions and different viewpoints can lead to better articles. @Ravensfire, I understand that we might have differing opinions at times, but our common purpose is to enhance Wikipedia's quality. Let's work together and find common ground on how best to handle the Republic Media Network article. Your insights are valuable, and I appreciate your dedication to Wikipedia. TruxtVerified | [Message] 13:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then start by showing the respect to everyone else. Your lecture is someone disingenuous and suggests that you disagree that I'm editing in good faith. You are incorrect. I realize that you don't see the issues with the article, which is why I expanded my reasoning in the comment above. Notability is established by significant, independent coverage of the article subject. When the sources say "Republic TV", that's what they are covering. This is getting into WP:BLUDGEON territory, my point is made here on the AFD and on the CANVASS. I'll not engage further here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should be kept as this is utilizable. The article provides a plethora of information, Wikipedia is a encyclopedia it is good to engender more and more articles, this article is having sources so there is no desideratum to merge it or delete it, Republic TV is different the channel is owned by the company so it is necessary to keep this, readers will find useful to know about the following page.✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 14:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Zendrago X (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) Ravensfire (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravensfire He just told me to share my opinion, he did not ask me to support his views or protect that article. I want this article to be kept as it is my view. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 01:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly he requested this me on my talk page not on any Off-Wiki source. He asked me to express my views so how is this canvassing? ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 01:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read the WP:CANVASS page. Then feel free to discuss on my talk page. But yes, this is textbook canvassing. Ravensfire (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find any canvassing. He did not ask me to oppose the effacement, he invited me and also there was no Textbook Canvassing there in link.

If you cerebrate I have done erroneous I am yare to abstract my comments as I was not vigilant of WP:CANVASS.

He just invited me in discussion as I additionally edit these types of topics, I opposed expunction. If he asked me to oppose the effacement then it can be Canvassing, but here in this case it is not (I cerebrate).

I am yare to abstract my comment if this is not good and is canvassing. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 10:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So much for wanting to keep side discussions on the side. Problem one - TruxtVerified notified one person, you, that they knew would share their viewpoint. Problem two - TruxtVerified used a very non-neutral request and asked for you to support keeping the article. That IS THE DEFINITION of canvassing, even with just one person. A short, neutral request to everyone that had more than a few edits to the Republic TV article (cause there aren't many who edited the RMN article) would have been fine. What TruxtVerified did is not what someone acting in good faith should do. Ravensfire (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I invited the user to share their opinion, and I believe that the article on Republic Media Network should be kept. It provides valuable information about the network and its significance in contemporary media. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it's important to maintain a diverse range of articles to educate readers. Your contribution to the discussion is appreciated, and your input is valued. Let's continue to focus on the quality of evidence and adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines during this discussion. TruxtVerified | [Message] 13:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I firmly believe that this article should be kept. It serves as an essential resource for readers who seek information about Republic Media Network, a prominent entity in the contemporary media landscape. The article provides a comprehensive overview, detailing aspects such as the network's history, ownership, and its various channels. This information is valuable for users looking to understand the network's role and significance.Wikipedia's purpose is to provide accurate and comprehensive information on a wide range of topics, and the Republic Media Network article aligns with this goal. Rather than merging or deleting it, we should focus on enhancing the article's quality and ensuring it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. Let's work together to make this article a valuable resource for all. TruxtVerified | [Message] 13:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good- where are the sources that are specifically about Republic Media Network that aren't press releases / self-published? They aren't there. Where is that significant, independent coverage that Wikipedia uses to show notability of a subject? It's not there. The article is nearly completely about Republic TV. Not this media network. Ravensfire (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ravensfire, your impressive track record of over 78,000 edits on Wikipedia reflects your dedication to the platform, and your contributions are greatly valued. It's essential to acknowledge that there are instances of articles with incomplete references on Wikipedia, and addressing them is an ongoing process.In the case of the Republic Media Network article, it's crucial to differentiate between Republic TV and Republic Media Network. While you raise a valid point, it's worth noting that this article pertains to a media company, similar to how Disney Star has its dedicated article. The distinction between the two is an important aspect of the discussion.I genuinely appreciate your insights and your active participation in this discussion. Although we may have differing opinions, let's continue our conversation in a constructive and collaborative manner. My belief is that preserving the Republic Media Network article is the right decision, and I hope we can reach a consensus that aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines. TruxtVerified | [Message] 16:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Republic TV per Ravensfire's reasoning. WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth not in article or above, BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 03:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't think there's going to be any agreement on this, after several resists some think the article should be kept, others think it should be deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of adult television channels

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

No sources indicated as it fail WP:GNG, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:LISTCRUFT. MirrorPlanet (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Television, and Entertainment. MirrorPlanet (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Television pornography exist. Are these paid for television channels that have only pornography, or would it include movie channels that show R rated films that have sex and nudity in them? Dream Focus 11:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: Its still unsourced, no reliable sources are found, also that contains original research. MirrorPlanet (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can do a news search for the names of any of the channels and the word "pornography". Also since its a navigation list, not needed to reference things that are referenced in the articles linked to or common sense. The first entry is AOV Adult Movie Channel, so that's in the actual name. But search for it with the word "pornography" and you find coverage easily. [77] Dream Focus 12:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How can things be categorized unless they have some citeable qualification making them worthy of the list? Hyperbolick (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the wind-down of pay-per-view on cable/satellite, many of these networks are defunct and no longer active, and I wish you (and your anti-virus program) good luck trying to find sources for all of these; most of the properties have long transferred to the Internet. This is a declining list better as a category. Nate • (chatter) 19:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. List serve a useful purpose to me and other encyclopedia users. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree that the list would be better as a category. The already existing Category:Television pornography seems like it already duplicates most of the entries – I'd be all for categorizing each entry in the current list that isn't already in the category under it. Tollens (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This list article would not fit in there Category:Lists_of_television_channels_by_content instead?

A improvement to make it match other article like List of documentary television channels would just be to add a short description beside each channel and make everything into a table. बिनोद थारू (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be perfectly fine – it's simply that a list of links is exactly what a category is for. If you'd like to expand the article with additional information, by all means go ahead. Tollens (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A category and a list on one given subject matter are partially, not exactly, the same. Not only does the category here duplicates only most of the entries (i.e. not all), but the list allows to organise links in sections, add sources and comments, which seems indeed necessary for the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Zee Marathi as there does not appear more input is forthcoming and a change in target, if needed, can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 14:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Yuva

AfDs for this article:

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

This is only a procedural AFD nomination. I was about to redirect this article. But a redirect to Zee Marathi#Sister channels has been reverted several times by an IP editor against general consensus. So we should either delete or keep this. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises: Seems like the best choice, this is just a long list with no discussion of the channel. Sourcing I find is all about individual TV shows, not about the channel. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zee Marathi which contains more information specific to this channel than Zee Entertainment Enterprises. Zee has a lot of channels in large part because of the multilingual nature of Indian media, and this target makes more sense as it is the main Marathi channel and the article contains summary information on other Marathi channels run by Zee. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need to get this down to one Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 04:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhola Maheswar

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non notable television series aired by a now defunct channel. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 02:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 02:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ due to lack of participation. I note Ally's comment at the end which was somewhere between a keep and a merge, and a merge could still be done editorially if desired by editors. Daniel (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Narasapura Industrial Area

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

Despite the lofty claims of notability in the lede, this is in fact just an above average sized industrial park that is not operating yet. The thing hasn't actually been built and the whole thing is just a promotional brochure entry right now that is, at best, overdue for TNT. BrigadierG (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, India, and Karnataka. BrigadierG (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the nominator's WP:BEFORE is not correct, there are numerous references including https://www.proquest.com/docview/2760770168/DF6905B092684D72PQ/1, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2803425383/DF6905B092684D72PQ/3, and https://www.proquest.com/docview/2761024527/DF6905B092684D72PQ/2 which say the subject is among the largest of its kind in Asia. Looking at the map shows it does indeed already exist. - Indefensible (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Indefensible. is there a Keep among your comments? Or are you just raising the question?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep but did not finish reviewing. The references can be used to block WP:PROD though. - Indefensible (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or merge): There is a substantial 2015 Economic Times piece about the process by which this project was developed: "Does Karnataka's Narasapura industrial town offer lessons in land acquisition from farmers? Not quite". There was also coverage of workers' protest actions a few years ago at an iPhone assembly plant there; the location is incidental to that event, but does confirm that this Industrial Area is indeed operational. I did wonder whether a merge to Narsapur, Karnataka might be a useful alternative, as that article looks rather scant and might benefit from extending the details about the area's economy? AllyD (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian Universities (MUN)

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

Previously speedily deleted by User:Liz as unambiguous promotion and lacking indicia of notability. Restoration was requested at WP:RFU. On the face of the article, I see no reason to disagree with Liz's assessment, but a full discussion will yield a more definitive determination on that point. BD2412 T 01:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. BD2412 T 01:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I have no great objection to retaining this page if other editors consider it notable, but I do object to the name, which suggests to people who don't know what "(MUN)" means (like me, until a few minutes ago), that it leads to info about universities in Peru. It needs to be renamed to something like "Peruvian Universities (student society). Athel cb (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since I previously deleted this article, I won't be closing this discussion but I think it's okay to relist it. We need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep & Rename - per Athel cb PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NORG, sources in the article and BEFORE failed WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, only indepth coverage is from sources that fail WP:IS. Keep votes listed no sources to eval. Agree this is a promo piece. // Timothy :: talk 20:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I see no reason to conclude the speedy was inappropriate. There is almost no content in the article not focusing on awards the club has received, and I agree with Timothy that there do not appear to be independent sources to support notability. Tollens (talk) 11:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the result ends up as no consensus I would support a rename as described by Athel cb. Tollens (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Tollens. 2001:1970:5ACA:E000:0:0:0:A186 (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above, no reliabe sources, no notability, etc. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oneal Sandidge

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

Mostly just the flags that have been sitting here for a few months now.

The writing is also strange. For instance: "Sandidge developed strong writing skills under the guidance of Dr. James Campbell." Sorry but, huh? If he wrote that, which he probably did, his writing skills are not strong.

Other stuff about completely indeterminate "inspiration" also fails to rise to the level of encyclopedic relevance; it reads, instead, like a prose resume. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Christianity, Arkansas, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to have no chance of meeting WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any significant citations in GS. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:BIO, no significant coverage. Mooonswimmer 14:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet GNG nor NPROF. --Mvqr (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhacophorus depressus

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

Fails WP:NSPECIES. Rhacophorus depressus is now classified as a species inquirenda since the original description and syntypes cannot be assigned to any living or extinct population. Loopy30 (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Loopy30 (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't feel strongly either way on this, but I'm not sure there's any benefit to deleting, or any harm in keeping. It is possible someone will come across this name, and assume it's a species like any other, and our current article may help to inform them. And it's not like a failed classification of a real species that can be redirected to the accepted, modern name. Elemimele (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NSPECIES isn't met here since there isn't a valid name/actual distinct species. That threshold needs to be met in order to have an article at all. KoA (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the existence of the species is officially disputed (which it appears to be to me, a non-specialist) then there doesn't seem to be any justification in keeping the page, which is likely to lead to confusion rather than clarity. If the status is confirmed or clarified the page can be recreated with appropriate RS. JMWt (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 13:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pyxicephalus cordofanus

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

Fails WP:NSPECIES. Pyxicephalus cordofanus was scientifically described as a new species in 1867, but lacks confirmed syntypes. Until recently, it was classified as valid but with uncertain taxonomic placement (incertae sedis). Now, it has been reclassified as a "nomen dubium" by the primary authority (AMNH Amphibian Species of the World 6.2), and is not recognised by any other source. Loopy30 (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Loopy30 (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep by the logic that (1) species are automatically notable; (2) it was, for a considerable time, considered a valid species; (3) in Wikipedia, if something was once notable, it remains notable. We are here to inform the public, not to maintain an up-to-date list of valid species names, and since our readers may come across this historical name, they have a right to know its current status and background. But I do understand the nominator's point, and I'm not going to lose huge amounts of sleep if this gets deleted. Elemimele (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  This is indicating though that is never had a valid name and never was actually notable though. Mistaken identity is one of those cases where we don't automatically confer notability, and even if it were, it sounds like a very prime case for WP:IAR. KoA (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSPECIES as sources say this is not a valid name and may have never been (i.e., never having true notability). We already have a pretty flexible threshold for species notability, but "possible species" don't meet that. KoA (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Sudan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article clearly state the doubts mentioned in the nom. The article as it stands is informative to the reader about the status of this species. I think the article in total is net positive and does not relay any misinformation. As per the policy at WP:SPECIES, it states Species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are generally kept. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid which the article does.

FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article states the name is not valid, quite the opposite of WP:NSPECIES. From the article The International Union for Conservation of Nature lists it as "data deficient", citing "continuing doubts as to its taxonomic validity, extent of occurrence, status and ecological requirements". Unknown validity is not the threshold for species notability. KoA (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are much more than just "doubts" about the validity of a species though. As a "nomen dubium", there is no extant type specimen, and we are unable to accurately compare the taxon to any other species of frog. As a consequence, the published name (and its accompanying 1876 description) is no longer recognised as a distinct species by any modern authority. There are many other nomen dubia in the scientific literature - but on Wikipedia we do not even list them under their purported parent taxa, let alone grant it the status of a stand-alone article. Loopy30 (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this emphasis can be added to the article. If someone looking for this will it is no longer recognised. I understand these are normally deleted but I am on the side of having what you just said available to the public rather than removing it FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde _{[trout needed]} 22:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Fuzzy's rationale that "this information would be of use to the public" should get checked in an article's "keep" column. The question is whether this article's subject, the idea of a species, is notable even if it's not a real species. It does seem to have the usual suspects: IUCN Red List treats this as a real species. The English language's primo froggy source, Amphibian Species of the World writes about this entity by acknowledging that different scientists have drawn different conclusions about it over the years. The only radio silence I'm getting is from AmphibiaWeb and Animal Diversity Web. I'd say that we should keep this one. If we vote to delete, then I say a paragraph explaining this situation would belong on the article about the genus Pyxicephalus. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the IUCN no longer "treats this as a real species", but has changed its entry to reflect that it is now considered as a nomen dubium and that "this taxon cannot be related to any known species in the wild", resulting in the IUCN being unable to complete any assessment on this invalidly defined taxon.

Nor should this entry be included as a "proposed" species of the genus Pyxicephalus, since no modern authority has argued that it should be included in that genus. While it appeared as a syntype in Häupl & Tiedemann's 1978 and 1995 NHMW catalogues, it was later reclassified on the museum's list by Gemel (2018) following Baha El Din (2017) which considered it to be a nomen dubium and "based on current knowledge, cannot be related to any other species".

This assessment by El Din is the latest and most accurate information on the subject, and is confirmed by the AMNH's ASW in their latest entry. Continuing to rely on a nineteenth century description that cannot be either confirmed, compared, or subjected to modern investigative methods, cannot be considered as publishing accurate summaries of reliable scientific knowledge. This why we do not include the names of the tens of thousands of nomen dubia in Wikipedia articles - to do otherwise would be a disservice to our readers. Loopy30 (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. General rule of thumb is that nomen dubium do not get articles and are regularly redirected or deleted. NSPECIES only applies to valid species. A paragraph at the genus and a redirect is more than adequate. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to genus article. Nomina dubia are legion, and we have kept to a habit of not dignifying them with separate articles; our species coverage is predicated on the species being recognized and valid. This should be a short notice in the context of the genus page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Protheroe

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

From my PROD which was just removed:

The only source on this page is an obituary of another person which doesn't even mention Protheroe, and the only sources I could find which did only had passing mentions. I'm surprised to find so little, especially for an article this extensive, but I do not see evidence of notability here.

The removal suggests sources in Google Scholar which may be of use here, but I could only find passing mentions in there as well so I'm doubtful. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are bios available, [78] and [79], and some coverage in the NY Times [80]. He appears to have a chapter in this 1975 book but I can't access the text: [81]. Judging by his AllMusic credits, link, Protheroe appears to have an extensive career. Given this I have a suspicion that Protheroe may prove notable - but further work, potentially with offline sources, is needed to find the evidence. If kept, the article really does need an ounce or two of WP:TNT. ResonantDis_tortion 20:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Internet Archive has British Music Now. Protheroe contributed a chapter (on Alexander Goehr) to the book; except for a short "contributor" bio (likely autobiographical) he's not profiled in it. Jfire (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly a notable (GNG) individual who is featured in multiple publications. Google Books, Google Ngram and Google Scholar. For these reasons, the article should be kept. Aye, the article clearly requires a clean up and referencing, but that's not a reason to delete the article. IJA (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: though simply pointing to google books and google scholar results is insufficient to demonstrate notability, I think the Milken Archive bio and couple of paragraphs in the NYT pointed to by ResonantDistortion are just about sufficient on their own to demonstrate a GNG pass. (The English Chamber Choir bio isn't helpful, as it is not independent, and as Jfire says Protheroe is a contributor to, not a subject of, British Music Now). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Robert A. Heinlein. Daniel (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Competent man

AfDs for this article:

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

Expended dictdef with no source to indicate it is in use. Fails the general notability policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 13:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources brought up by prior AfDs are interesting, but nothing that you can really expand an article over. I support a merge to Robert A. Heinlein. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Robert A. Heinlein. — The Anome (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jack of all trades, master of none, as this is really about the characteristic, rather than Heinlein's specific formulation of it. Once that is done I will nominate Jack of all trades, master of none to be moved to Jack of all trades, and the disambiguation page to be moved to the disambiguated title. BD2412 T 19:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Meets WP:GNG with sources shown below. This concept indeed did originate in criticism of Heinlein's work, however it's extended beyond Heinlein to at the very least Harlan Ellison, Piers Anthony, James E. Gunn, and analysis of real world effects, via sources below. There does seem to be some amount of conceptual overlap with Jack of all trades, however I am not sure if merging is appropriate as risking OR, so even considering WP:NOPAGE, I still think keep is the best option. Here are some demonstrative sources from a non-exhaustive search in Google Books:
1. Ellen Weil and Gary K. Wolfe's Harlan Ellison: The Edge of Forever [82] has a discussion of the concept in relation to Heinlein and Ellison
  No writer had done more to promote science fiction's myth of the competent man than Robert A. Heinlein, an author who is almost never cited among Ellison's precursors or influences. Heinlein's hard-edged stories all point in the direction of "The Cold Equations" by portraying a mechanistic universe in which the engineer, by virtue of training and skill, is the natural master. "Very early in life when I read Robert Heinlein I got the thread that runs through his stories- the notion of the competent man," Ellison once told an interviewer. "I've always held that as my ideal. I've tried to be a very competent man" (Platt 166). But Ellison is missing the point. Heinlein's imaginary worlds, like those of Isaac Asimov and other writers of science fiction's "golden age" of the 1940s, seem deliberately constructed to reward the kinds of competence that science fiction readers a thought they already possessed--technical facility, arcane knowledge, an understanding of scientific principles, above all problem-solving skill-and that too often go unrewarded in the messy worlds of schools, jobs, and social relationships. Classic science fiction often portrays a kind of techno-geek utopia, and Ellison was never able to fully buy into this world. From the very beginning, his fiction brought to the surface the underlying fears and anxieties of the readers' real world- loneliness, alienation, insecuri-ty--and suggested that all the technological fixes of science fiction couldn't eliminate them.
2. Discussion relating to James E. Gunn in Michael R. Page's Saving the World Through Science Fiction: James Gunn, Writer, Teacher and Scholar[83]
  With Stewart, Gunn created a good example of the "competent man," the efficient and resourceful Heinlein/Campbell hero, capable of achieving the goals of a system outside of the direct influence of the bureaucratic realities of the system itself. This is, in essence, the nature of the frontier theme-the Admiral and his men on the outpost station in "Communi-cations" are also good examples. In later work, Gunn will continue to explore the nature of the competent man, but often placed within the structural inertias of bureaucratic systems, illustrating that the Heinlein/ Campbell hero has limitations. In the end, and not unexpectedly, Stewart succeeds in convincing the Rigelians to join the Alliance, through rational persuasive discourse. Like most of the stories Campbell published in this vein, it is more an argument than a heroic action adventure.
3. A discussion relating to author Piers Anthony's work from Willaim Glass, via Michael R. Collings' Piers Anthony [84]
  At the same time, Castle Roogna is also constantly (if entertainingly) didactic, in something like Heinlein's SF juveniles of the 1950's. Dor is clearly the naive Heinlein youth, his quest their usual one for competence and maturi-ty-even if it is complicated by tritons, dragons, ogres, zombies, tangle trees, forfons, and the like; and even if the older, Heinlein competent man character is a very intelli-gent, highly magnified spider. [9]
4. A discussion relating to cultural criticism of real world "AI" in Richard Heimann's Doing AI [85]
  Consider that science fiction writer Robert Heinlein's "competent man" is sometimes seen as the archetype for insiders.12 Heinlein notes that, "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.»13 Heinlein adds, "Specialization is for insects."
  The fact that most of us can't do half of these things Heinlein considers human competence is perhaps why inspiration for artificial intelligence often comes from science fiction. This exaggerated anthropomorphic viewpoint, however, is a high standard for almost all applied problem solving. After all, businesses need to solve problems even if those solutions are as specialized as an insect's.
5. More specific to Heinlein in Thomas D. Clareson and Joe Sanders' The Heritage of Heinlein: A Critical Reading of the Fiction [86]
  Jack Williamson acknowledges that the characters in The Rolling Stones, which he calls "a delightful romp through space ... a dream of personal freedom," are all variations "on the brilliantly competent man" ("Youth" 22, 23), a term for Heinlein's protagonists first used by Alexei Panshin (HD 12). But in saying this Williamson traps himself in a sense, for he is hard pressed to find individuals who fulfill Heinlein's essential criterion that a character must change/grow.
6. Some more specific to Heinlein in Farah Mendlesohn's The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein[87]
  - Heinlein's understanding of what a man should be and do is scattered throughout his work, and at various times in this book I have tackled aspects of it. What emerges is that the concept of the 'Heinlein hero' or the 'competent man' that has come to be the accepted face of Heinlein's masculinity is actually rather problematic; perhaps only Lazarus Long fits this model of the masculine man.
  - There is a tendency to dismiss Heinlein's literary skills; to dismiss Heinlein's characters as examples of the 'competent man'; to assume that dogmatic characters are ipso facto the authorial voice...
  - The doofus male may be smart in his own right, but he has to be courted with a metaphorical club and/or dragged in his destined direction by a metaphorical tug of the hair. The doofus male - interestingly - has never taken his rightful place alongside Heinlein's competent man as a key Heinlein character. Both club and tug are usually operated by the highly competent Heinlein female.

—siro χ o 05:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Robert A. Heinlein, as it seems this is largely a term that refers to his works. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as this is almost exclusively related to his works. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per siroχo's analysis of the sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge subject to later re-creation with the added sources. Right now, there's only four sources, two from one author. That's not significant coverage. It's also really part of a continuum with the Mary Sue trope. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neera Arya

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

This was previously deleted as a Hoax at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4#Neera Arya. However this article cite additional sources which I checked few of them and they did not check out. Some source do not even mention "Neera Ayra" include the BBC others are not functional links. I will leave it to the community decide rather than go for speedy deletion FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be helpful if @Dsrprj:, who created the article on 13 August 2023, would explain why the access-dates on their sources range from 2016 to 2021. Did they actually consult these sources? Or is this an unacknowledged translation from another Wikipedia? PamD 07:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm still suspicious about some of the further sources added with ancient "access-date"s, suggesting that the editors haven't looked at the material, but the book First Lady Spy Of INA: Neera Arya (ISBN 9789354886621) is published by Prabhat Prakashan on whom we have an article. If some of the sources are dubious, or cast suspicion on whether the whole tale is true, then that seems a need for careful editing and addition of further, reliable, sources. PamD 07:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That biography is listed on Amazon as "biographical fiction" [88]: I am skeptical that it is a reliable source. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  read the discription or checkout this - [89] DSP2092^talk 09:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  This 2021 version is what triggered my thought about this being a hoax. However the current 2023 version seem to be perceived as factual.
  
  @DSP2092 I think it will help everyone if you can fix the archived links and remove the unreliable references indicated in the previous discussion and also remove the irrelevant references like the BBC which doesn’t support the content attributed to FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep: I have recently expanded this article from the Hindi article. This article needs additional reliable sources, but it definitely meets the Wiki guidelines. There are even movies and books based on Neera Arya. DSP2092^talk 08:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DSP2092: did you check the sources you added, or just copy the work of the Hindi editors without acknowledgment? PamD 09:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked all the sources, but I have read the article, and it does contain information I have read in a book about her. I am going to copyedit and add some reliable sources soon. DSP2092^talk 09:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that will help, given that this is a previously deleted article for being a Hoax FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input is clearly necessary...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Dympies, @Georgethedragonslayer, @Jay, @Someone-123-321 and @Editorkamran who participated in the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4#Neera Arya FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the RfD, my opinion was to discuss at AfD, which we are now doing. Thanks for the ping. I don't have an opinion as of now, will go through the sources. Jay 💬 10:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. I would like to thank Fuzzymagma for pinging me. Anyone can see my comments on RfD and my analysis of sources there. All of the sources that have been used here came after 2015, which itself proves that we have no actual serious source that is discussing this non-existing subject. Not a single cited source has any expertise in history. Dympies (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dympies How do you explain the references to an award in her name, and to a memorial to her being built, which appear genuine according to Google translation? PamD 23:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Kindly post the sources here. There are just too many listed unreliable sources to wade through to find what you are saying. Dympies (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dympies Sources such as those currently refs 4, 5 and 7. PamD 06:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are newly created articles. Having a non-notable award created after a fictional person is not any evidence of WP:N. Dympies (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just like what I had said on RfD, there is no source to confirm if this person was real. It is easy to viral fake news on internet but Wikipedia is not their backwater. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dympies. Yes the subject is nothing more than a hoax. There are no scholarly sources to confirm the existence of this fake subject. In India, state-sponsored efforts are being made in the recent years to falsify history but we must avoid entertaining that.[90] Editorkamran (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The number of sources, found, even if some are considered unreliable, suggests that even if she did not exist she is notable as a fictional or legendary character, the subject of books and apparently a film. If the reader finds [ https://m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/roopa-iyers-bollywood-debut-is-on-indias-first-woman-spy-before-independence/amp_articleshow/95093222.cms a Times of India article] about her biopic, Wikipedia should have an article about her.Pam D 06:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the current article is not written as fictional and please consider that Tines of India might not be a reliable sources as it known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage, see WP:RSP. I am still waiting for @DSP2092 to do what they promised (adding reliable sources and fix the dead links) FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to rewrite the article. I am copyediting in my sandbox but it will take some time. I have my exams running so i can't rewrite whole article in few days. It needs a lots of work to find RS and rewrite whole article, Regards. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 16:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. We would know that from hundreds of scholarly sources written about Indian National Army if this subject was not a hoax but it is clear at present stage that it is indeed a social media fake news. CharlesWain (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Its a WP:HOAX. Agletarang (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Gardens Shopping Centre

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a pretty standard shopping mall without demonstrated notability. Several of the citations included are reliable and independent but are not supportive of notability. This title was previously deleted via AfD, but this is not a re-creation of the original but a new and improved (albeit still not notable) article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Australia. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toowoomba, Queensland as alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Previously deleted and could only find routine coverage that doesn't meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure that it's an essential place for those who want to buy things, but that doesn't make it notable. Doesn't seem like much has changed since it was last deleted. TarnishedPath^talk 09:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination was withdrawn and only 'delete' opinion was both replied to, and was prior to Ymblanter's changes to the article. Daniel (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rusich Podolsk

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

This Russian ice hockey team article has one reference that is not sufficient to establish notability. After searching, unable to find in depth reliable sources. Article was created on 16 July 2011 JoeNMLC (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - article now has sufficient content to establish notability. Thank you for improving this one. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Ice hockey, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - third level of Russian ice hockey is covered extensively in the press there, but unfortunately these newspapers are not accessible online. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 18:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find substantial coverage, and there is no Russian-language Wikipedia article for this team to look for sources. Flibirigit (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a series of books published by A. Serebrennikov, covering hockey in Russia up to 2000 (unfortunately, the author has yet to make it further). The third level competitions were included in these, with numerous newspaper citations. This level of hockey received significant coverage in the Russian press, same as the ECHL does here in America. It's just difficult to find given the lack of online newspaper archives in Russia. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 19:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added a few sources and expanded the article a bit.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-Cosmos: A Science Fiction Podcast

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

The subject does not pass WP:GNG, WP:WEBCRIT, or WP:NPODCAST. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Radio, and Entertainment. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find a significant amount of GNG level coverage here to warrant an article about this subject. User:Let'srun 13:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juniper Foundation

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

Fails WP:NORG: no media notice of this charity. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Buddhism, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Sourcing wise I can't find much more than is already in the article and nothing that would contribute to its notability. The only thing even approaching a third-party source would be the Snow Lion Newsletter (here's an archived copy) which wouldn't necessarily be a reliable source, but since that reference isn't even about (and indeed predates the formation of) the Juniper Foundation, it's a moot point if it's reliable or not because it wouldn't contribute to the notability of the subject in any case. - Aoidh (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jengod (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I find the arguments against keeping substantially stronger. The precise wording of RSSM is somewhat tangential; it is a long-established principle that newspapers range from national to local and from professional to amateur, and that a local, amateur publication is going to be given far less weight in determining notability than, say, the NYT. There is also the question of intellectual independence. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Byerly

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

Fails WP:GNG and is a run-of-the-mill spokesperson for a government agency. All but three of the references are either by NASA (Byerly's employer) or by Texas A&M (his alma mater), which would not be independent. Of the other three, one is a deadlink but appears to be about a NASA program and not coverage focused on Byerly, one is also a deadlink but appears to have been to a video on the National Air and Space Museum on which his voice "appears" (so not coverage), the third is a hyper local blogspot post about Byerly speaking at a local library. This article appears to have been created and maintained by mostly single-purpose accounts that likely have a WP:COI, one of which deleted said COI concerns from the article talk page. GPL93 (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and Texas. GPL93 (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or update article - No longer with NASA. Good bio info: TAMU News Nov 2022 He appears to be employed by SLB tech company. — Maile (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be bio info, but it's not a notability lending source because it's alumni news from Texas A&M's website and therefore not independent. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Updated the article with several more news sources and reference material (although I disagree that some of the Texas A&M references lacked independence. Most were published by legitimate news outlets/publications and written by journalists, as opposed to the marketing arm of the University). Current article already reflects Byerly as an alumni of NASA, so I did not edit further. In terms of the notability question, I believe the existing number of sources addresses this, and you can also reference the other select NASA commentators such as George Diller and others that have articles here. These were not "run of the mill" spokespersons, but rather individuals who took part in higher-profile, historical missions for the agency toward the end of the space shuttle program and were widely covered in national and international media.

Transformer911 (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can disagree, but per Wikipedia policies these sources are deemed to lack independence. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an invalid argument to keep an article and the missions were covered, but Byerly himself was not. Best,GPL93 (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Public Affairs Officer is not an inherently notable role. The sources cover mainly his statements as the spokesperson rather than him specifically. Texas A&M and the college newspaper do cover him in detail but are not truly independent.-KH-1 (talk) 05:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Transformer911 and the historical notability of participants in the Space Shuttle program and the servicing of the Hubble Space Telescope. College newspapers are written by student journalists and their articles are independent of the subjects they report on (i.e. if they were reporting on the college newspaper itself then the point of "independence" may be valid). These are feature articles about a notable and accomplished individual such as would be found in any newspaper or other publication. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSSM, student media is not considered notability-lending. Simply being one of hundreds of members of an overall shuttle mission also doesn't guarantee notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSSM is not a guideline or policy page. It does state that student media "can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available." Student journalists are journalists, by both professional calling and training. When a reputable student publication prints a feature article on an individual not an employee of the school then it is as reputable as any other media coverage. The "student" sources in Byerly's article are as reputable as if they were printed in the New York Times, and belittling their coverage for the sake of deleting this article should be both discounted and ignored by editors and the closer. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not true. They are not as reputable as the NYT given that the editors are also students with limited experience and they generally have very limited circulation and a lower barrier for entry to both become a journalist (and many student journalists have no intention of pursuing journalism post-graduation and see participation as an extra-curricular activity) and also for the inclusion of articles. This isn't belittling anyone, these are facts. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is belittling and dismissive of multiple, legitimate sources for the sake of what seems to be a personal mission and bias to delete the article. It also ignores the fact there are dozens of other national and international sources that are used throughout. To say that "simply being one of hundreds of members of an overall shuttle mission" is a gross misunderstanding of Byerly's and others' roles. This individual was the primary spokesperson and voice of Mission Control during some of the final flights of the shuttle program (especially Discovery) and his commentary was widely quoted during that time and since. His public profile was known throughout the wider NASA community (and continues to be), so to attempt to dismiss it repeatedly, and then dismiss the journalists and others who covered his commentary and his other work is unfair. It is also a slippery slope to start measuring journalistic integrity based on perceived experience or circulation. Some of these sources have a higher circulation and audience than several other daily newspapers and sites. Transformer911 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except we can measure that a college paper's reporters are not professional, which is one of the reasons why WP:RSSM was added as non-notability lending via consensus. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted by KH-1 the page references do not indicate notablity and no sources cover him specifically other than his alama mater student publications which is very close to the topic and thus not truly independent. Per WP:RSSM, student media is not considered notability-lending. And as noted by GPL93 the article appears to have been created and maintained by mostly single-purpose accounts that likely have a WP:COI. Gsearch has not pulled notable coverage. Cacaochippy (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2023

Again with WP:RSSM. It either does not apply (the subject does not work for the college) nor does it say that student sources cannot be used. Please read it. The newspapers is not very close to the subject just because he graduated from the school - that's like saying that the Chicago Sun-Times wouldn't be reputable writing about someone who used to live in Chicago. All of these comments about being featured in a student newspaper should not only be ignored as negative criticism but should be credited as reputable sources, as they are on the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does apply. The coverage is directly related to Byerly being an alum. It's not like he's being covered by student newspapers for other institutions, just the school he attended. It's not that these sources can't be used, it states that the coverage shouldn't be counted towards notability. Even so, only 2 of the 5 Texas A&M sources are from the student paper. GPL93 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feature articles on individuals are common in student publications, regardless of where the subject went to college. Just because he is a graduate of Texas A&M doesn't change the information found in the sources. That's like saying film magazines can't cover actors because they appeared in films, or Sporting News shouldn't be a source for people that have played sports. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. Both of those are publications on an entire field with professional journalists. A more apt example would be coverage of a high school athlete in the local paper, which consensus has determined is not notability-lending just as they have for student media. It's also not "regardless", there is a direct correlation. These articles aren't from the Harvard Crimson or The Daily Toreador, and are essentially "alum is doing this" from his alma mater. GPL93 (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More than a dozen of the sources in the article are from national and international news networks, particularly around his involvement with the final space shuttle missions and the International Space Station. He was a key, notable figure during those flights, and the coverage indicates such. Comparing it to a "high school athlete" or saying the coverage is "alum is doing this" is reductive, not logical, and an attempt to belittle both the coverage and the subject at the same time. Transformer911 (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources are passing mentions and quick quotes, which do not lend to notability as they are not WP:SIGCOV of the subject and none of those articles about him. If he is such a key figure then why isn't there in-depth coverage from better sources? Why hasn't CBS or the Associated Press actually covered him at all except for quotes he's given on behalf of NASA? I can't even find anything in terms of significant from his hometown's newspaper, the Tyler Morning Telegraph. GPL93 (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man argument. Perhaps he never gave an interview to the Tyler Morning Telegraph. Perhaps he did and it's behind a paywall. Perhaps it's been archived and is no longer searchable. Either way, I'm confident you would have continued to attack its relevance, as you have on all of the sources. In terms of your CBS and Associated Press comment, neither of those outlets typically do in-depth personal profiles on people (unless it's 60 Minutes or a feature-type outlet such as that), but yet both of those media outlets as well as others found Byerly relevant and impactful enough to quote him repeatedly during the NASA missions. He was clearly a key source of information for all of them, and they all found him notable, regardless of your personal bias. Transformer911 (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those outlets run in-depth pieces on people all the time. It's one of the reasons why WP:SIGCOV is required and why passing mentions (such as quotes) do not count towards notability. Being a point of contact for the press is part of working in public affairs and that doesn't indicate notability. If it did, most spokespeople for government agencies, politicians, major corporations, etc. would likely also be considered notable. Unless a subject meets an inclusionary standard (such as WP:NPOL or WP:NPROF), notability must be established via significant coverage from reliable sources. This is not bias, this is Wikipedia policy. I'd recommend staying away from such accusations. At this point we are having a circular argument and creating a rather daunting wall of text that could dissuade other editors from weighing in. It's probably best to WP:DROP. GPL93 (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Randy Kryn. The sources in question are all legitimate and have no personal connection to the subject. There are multiple media outlets quoted in the article (and available through search), but the original requestor has become fixated on the Texas A&M newspaper, which did an in-depth profile on Byerly (ignoring there was yet another, even more in-depth profile done by a large blog site that covers NASA, which is also listed as a source). So if one is supposed to ignore any and all media coverage from a newspaper simply because Byerly attended Texas A&M more than 25 years ago, does one need to ignore the NASAspaceflight and Space.com sources because they only cover space and Byerly was one of the main faces of the human spaceflight program for a few years? The argument does not stand up. As mentioned before, some of these outlets actually have larger circulation numbers than other media sites you might quote. And any WP:COI concerns have been thoroughly addressed in previous posts. Transformer911 (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Law & Order characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Max Greevey

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

Sources in the article are primary (the book seems to be an official book), a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Law & Order characters. Spinixster (chat!) 01:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 01:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There's not much to merge here considering the format of List of Law & Order characters. Redirect is the best bet. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Law & Order characters. This Looper article was all I could find that wasn't a passing mention, and it doesn't really count towards notability. Mooonswimmer 10:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mooonswimmer: just letting you know you forgot to sign. Spinixster (chat!) 08:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looper did some specific character analysis, but let's see what else is out there. Daily Express. We can do even better with Google Scholar hits: Changing the way we think about character change in episodic television series looks very promising, full text is available for "The Representations of Race and Ethnicity on NYPD Blue and Law & Order: An Analysis of the Portrayal of New York City on Crime and Police Drama" in pdf (click Google Scholar link), Morality, metanarratives, and mea culpa: postmodern problems in Law and order mentions "Greevey" twenty times. This leaves me feeling pretty okay about keeping this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Looper is listed as unreliable in WP:VG/S and Daily Express is also unreliable per WP:RSP. I'll check the other sources later. Spinixster (chat!) 00:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here are the other scholarly sources.
- ~~I cannot access the first source, so I'd appreciate if someone else can.~~ Update: I have found the source, and it only briefly mentions the character as Mike Logan's partner.
- The second source only briefly mentions and describes the character. I'd say it's not enough analysis.
- Looking at the third source, it seems to only mention Greevey in plot summaries, not much analysis is going on.
Spinixster (chat!) 02:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe WP:VG/S only applies to video games. This article is not about a video game or video game character. I also cannot access the full text of the first source. I missed going over sources for questionable articles with you. Let us chew on them together with delight. Disagree about "Representations" source, assuming that's the one you meant. Agree about Daily Express: We can do better. I cite sources like that one in these discussions not because I'd use them in the article but to get a sense of how ubiquitous/not ubiquitous a character is in the culture. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I observe that the List of Law and Order characters article isn't the kind of character list article that has descriptions, not even short ones. It's just names, job titles, and reasons they were removed from the show. I don't think that serves readers coming to Wikipedia to find out which character this is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if VG/S only applies to video games, the fact that it is listed as unreliable should raise a few eyebrows. Note that the discussions for the Looper source also says that it has a churnalism and repurposing problem.

I still think that the "Representations" source only briefly mentions the character. Aside from the plot summary, there's just 1 short paragraph about the character.

The first source can be accessed via Z-Library. Spinixster (chat!) 02:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Law & Order characters - Well, Daily Express is definitely unreliable since it's listed as such at WP:RSP. Looper is better but still not what I would consider a reliable source. So the only one left is the thesis which alone is not enough to pass the criteria at WP:GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mika1h. I don't see enough reliable coverage. A redirect is a good WP:ATD that allows additional information to be added through a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Kashettar, Swathi (May 29, 2023). "How Does Pi Network Work?". Analytics Insight. Retrieved October 26, 2023.

[2] Henn, Peter (April 6, 2023). "What is Pi Network?". Capital.com. Retrieved October 26, 2023.

[3] Gupta, Siddhant (2019-09-16). "Stanford grads develop cryptocurrency for smartphone users to increase its accessibility". The Stanford Daily. Retrieved 2023-08-15.

[4] Hope, Utulu (August 21, 2023). "The Growth of Pi Network: 100 Million Users". BSC News. Retrieved October 26, 2023.

[5] Beckh, Joachim (February 26, 2021). "What is "Pi"". Linkedin. Retrieved October 26, 2023.

[6] "How Many Users on Pi Network?". Forex.in.rs. February 26, 2021. Retrieved October 26, 2023.

[7] Gupta, Siddhant (2019-09-16). "Stanford grads develop cryptocurrency for smartphone users to increase its accessibility". The Stanford Daily. Retrieved 2023-08-15.

[8] "Pi Network". Forbes Digital Assets. Retrieved 2023-08-15.

[9] Willing, Nicole; Henn, Peter (2023-04-06). Medleva, Valerie (ed.). "Pi Network price prediction: What is PI?". Capital.com. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

[10] "Pi Network". Forbes Digital Assets. Retrieved 2023-08-15.

[11] "Pi Network Price Prediction 2023-2027". Changelly.com. Retrieved October 26, 2023.

[12] Henn, Peter (April 6, 2023). "What is Pi Network?". Capital.com. Retrieved October 26, 2023.

[13] "Pi Network Price Prediction 2023-2027". Changelly.com. Retrieved October 26, 2023.

[14] "Pi Network". Forbes Digital Assets. Retrieved 2023-08-15.

[15] "Pi Network Price Prediction 2023-2027". Changelly.com. Retrieved October 26, 2023.

[16] Henn, Peter (April 6, 2023). "What is Pi Network?". Capital.com. Retrieved October 26, 2023.

[17] Hope, Utulu (August 21, 2023). "The Growth of Pi Network: 100 Million Users". BSC News. Retrieved October 26, 2023.

[18] "Bitcoin vs Pi Network: Computational Power vs Energy-Efficient Mobile Mining". CoinDCX. June 29, 2023. Retrieved October 26, 2023.

[19] Hope, Utulu (June 6, 2023). "Pi Network vs. Bitcoin Network: A Comparative Analysis". BSC News. Retrieved October 26, 2023.

[20] Hope, Utulu (June 6, 2023). "Pi Network vs. Bitcoin Network: A Comparative Analysis". BSC News. Retrieved October 26, 2023.

[21] Daly, Lyle (June 8, 2022). "What is Pi Network & Cryptocurrency Coin?". Retrieved October 26, 2023.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.