Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 12 July 14 >

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 no consensus‎ and none likely to emerge with it literally in the news Star Mississippi 02:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 Wimbledon school incident

2023 Wimbledon school incident (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A car crash without special intentions or an extreme number of casualties? No reason to believe that this would ever pass WP:NOTNEWS and will get WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Fram ( talk) 14:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep per @ Wjfox2005. 90.255.6.219 ( talk) 19:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Neutral, but leaning towards include. This clearly isn't a "normal" car crash. It's currently the main headline on all major UK news outlets. A girl of eight has died, and 16 other persons are now known to be injured, many critically. So the casualty figure does seem notable, and I wouldn't be so quick to delete this article. It could certainly do with more info, though (currently only two lines of text). Wjfox2005 ( talk) 15:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete A very common type of accident whose only claim to N is that it was near a big event where reporters could report on it very quickly, and is very likely an accident rather than a purposeful occurrence where the driver intended to hurt anyone. Nate • ( chatter) 01:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This event was not part of something larger ("The incident was not being treated as terrorism-related" [1]). It sounds like she lost control of her car and crashed, nothing out of WP:MILL coverage. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This sounds like it was a tragic accident, but there's nothing that makes it notable in an encyclopedic sense. This is Paul ( talk) 09:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - since this just occurred, virtually all sources are going to be primary. Lacking any notable person being involved; or as previously mentioned, no large death toll or nefarious intent, there's no reason to think this will ever be anything but NOTNEWS content. At best, this is TOOSOON, but to be totally honest, I don't see this ever being notable. 4.37.252.50 ( talk) 15:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it's a car crash, like the thousands of others that happen every day. There is no way that this will get sustained coverage later on, and absent that, it's not notable. AryKun ( talk) 07:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 08:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Wimbledon, London#History. Firstly, I think the contributions of previous editors have made clear – to the point of WP:SNOWBALL – that this article should not survive the AfD. I quote WP:EVENTCRITERIA: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths..."shock" news... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Nevertheless, dissenting editors have rightly pointed out that this is a significant incident that has dominated headlines in the UK and received widespread national coverage, though such coverage is unlikely to be sustained. So a mention in the local area's history section may be appropriate, and will likely take no more than two or three sentences. (The primary school itself probably doesn't meet notability coverage.) The nominated article can always be recreated if 'something further' does offer 'additional enduring significance', but this would need to be more than a higher death toll – for example, say, an official enquiry that makes significant policy recommendations. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 11:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Why would we merge this current-day thing to an article summarizing a thousand-year old community? This is not going to retain any more significant coverage past this week outside pundits for the Daily Mail and the junk news channels and maybe a couple days when the driver pleads and is sentenced. It's sad and it's happened, but we are not, and should not, be a database of every single accident. Nate • ( chatter) 21:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Reply By 'merge', I only intend that we might append two or, at a stretch, three sentences to the section, which also mention the event's significant coverage in national newspapers. Two issues may understandably make this alternative to deletion seem out of place:
1. The Wimbledon, London#History section could be expanded with recent history (it currently ends in the 1970s and 1980s).
2. The Wimbledon, London article effectively incorporates two communities centred on different high streets which may well justify separate articles: the "old" village and the "new" town down the hill. The site of this incident is on the edge of the former settlement. (Rather tellingly, the lead section includes neighbouring wards in Wimbledon's population count, up to two of which have separate entries: Raynes Park and Wimbledon Park – though the article focuses on the park, the short description refers to the settlement.) In an article on the village, which is a much smaller settlement, a mention of this incident might seem more apposite – in light of the significant coverage.
Asking as charitably as possible how this incident might merit inclusion in the encyclopaedia even if it is short of a separate article, one consideration might be that yes, this event is WP:MILL to the extent that fatalities from cars occur daily, but it has also generated significant coverage and featured on the front pages of many national newspapers, which is not WP:MILL. Wikipedia does not work on precedent, but I cannot help but think that the Wallasey pub shooting, also in headlines in recent days, could equally be described as WP:MILL if it were not for the headlines it generated. From WP:NCRIME: As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 02:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I think its a bit of a stretch to compare this event to explosions which killed 5+ people. Again, there was no larger motive here based on the investigation being conducted. What level of detail would you focus on? There is the car, the person driving the car, the victims, and the reactions. Lets start with the car... if the model or make of the car was found to be at fault then yes that would be a WP:LASTING effect. I can't think about much regarding the person driving the car as they aren't being linked to terrorism. As for the victims, are they notable? If one of them gets an article then this article could be redirected there. Finally, reactions are routine... unless you have the King or Prime Minister directly making a statement (not through someone else) I don't see how its notable. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: From WP:LASTING: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. This isn't a necessary condition for notability, just as WP:SCOPE – in this case, coverage by national newspapers – is not a sufficient condition: Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 20:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Whispyhistory: With all due respect, that would present a bit of bias. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge This article was probably created too soon, but this AfD was also initiated too soon. This event is currently falling somewhere between run-of-the-mill (those incidents don't get breaking news push notifications for updates, nor comments from national political leaders) and clearly notable. This indicates there should be coverage somewhere, but not necessarily as a stand-alone article. If the school was notable, then there would be no question that this should be merged to that article rather than deleted, but the school not being notable does not change the notability of the event. As noted above, the Wimbledon, London article (either as is or after a split) would make a suitable target. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Wimbledon, London#History, but in brief. I would not object to the deletion either. It should be remembered that the tragedy of the story or the number of victims is not fundamental in this case, what is fundamental is the notability as understood by the rules. The notability of much larger incidents is often called into question here. Deckkohl ( talk) 14:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I feel this AfD was created a bit too soon. The nominator on 6 July expressed the view that the article was unlikely to get WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Sadly the second death of an 8-year-old girl on 9 July led to further significant national news coverage and the fact that a woman in her forties is reported to be critically ill in hospital, with over a dozen further casualties means it may continue to get sustained coverage. I agree with Wjfox2005 that the incident was not a "normal" car crash. For the Land Rover to crash into a school, kill two children and for there to have been many other casualties taken to hospital makes this a notable and unusual event. There were public reactions expressed from a number of senior British politicians, which doesn't tend to happen for a "normal" car crash. Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 23:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The bulk of editors are arguing for Deletion but the most recent participants are advocating Keep or Merge. Would a selective Merge preserve content that Keep supporters is important? Would this outcome and turning this page into a redirect to the town be okay with those seeking Deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - This article is about a car accident with two fatalities. No one involved was notable. It's certainly not the first time a car has crashed into a school, nor will it be the last. It is a totally insignificant event to all but the friends and family of those involved. There's absolutely no reason to merge any information about a COMMONPLACE auto accident into an article on a thousand year old city. Notability is designed to ensure that sufficient SECONDARY sources to verify the accuracy of the article. At this point, all sources are news accounts and I suppose that many editors do not realize that news accounts are PRIMARY. I frankly doubt they'll ever be any secondary sources. What reason would there ever be to do a secondary analysis of a relatively minor traffic accident. WP:RECENT, WP:LOCAL and WP:COMMONPLACE all apply. 4.37.252.50 ( talk) 03:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. We're chasing a moving target if we try to evaluate the sources now. (We're here discussing whether to delete an article, not whether to create one; it's a bit odd to cite WP:DELAY while ignoring the immediately following section.) Beyond that, I do not believe that the above citation to WP:PRIMARY is correct. I can find nothing there to support the claim that news accounts are PRIMARY -- and I would be surprised if I could, since that statement seems categorically false. Plenty of the available sources here meet the WP:SECONDARY requirement of contain[ing] analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. But any detailed analysis of sources (and thus of notability) is pointless at this juncture, which is why we have RAPID in the first place. (I don't think it's foregone conclusion that this is a transient event with no broader implications -- it will be interesting, for example, to see if Norman Baker's call for SUV restrictions based on this incident gets any non-tabloid uptake.) -- Visviva ( talk) 18:17, 14 July 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. If better source material becomes available in the future and someone is interested in having this draftified, please let me know. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Audel Laville

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found one good piece of coverage here, which I added, but unfortunately this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Other sources like this and this are not independent. It might be a good idea to Draftify. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See if there is more support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru ( talk) 09:06, 21 July 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. Very little input, but ultimately the one "keep" opinion does not provide any sources that establish notability. Sandstein 13:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Reclaiming the Glory

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Looks questionable. UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 13 July 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 01:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Reverb Records

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

Record labels are business, not a band, so they're expected to meet WP:NCORP. Verifiability of existence do not clear the hurdle of notability. This is non-notable, because it lacks significant, intellectually independent coverage in multiple reliable sources, of which at least one must be broadly circulated media. Graywalls ( talk) 19:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, WP:NCORP, WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED. In terms of NCORP and GNG, and following my own WP:BEFORE, I have added all the sources I could find. All are trivial passing mentions in national newspapers (one single passing mention in The Times (UK)), fleeting mentions in regional newspapers (INM regionals for Sligo and Drogheda) and a word or two in music mags (like Hot Press). As the org is based in Portland, Oregon, I also looked in The Oregonian, finding only this single source. In each case the subject is mentioned, in passing, in articles which are substantively about something else. I can find no in depth coverage to support the text - not to mind supporting a claim to notability. In terms of NOTINHERITED, a small (<10 employee?) independent label doesn't inherit notability from its customers/partners/whatever. No more than any other org/business/subject would. The COI/SPA overtones also do not help. Mine is a "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez ( talk) 14:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 13 July 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Village Enterprise

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

Article about an organization that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH. Written in a promotional tone though it has been previously trimmed. Also sources are mostly passingmentions. Jamiebuba ( talk) 22:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Move to draft: Agree with WeirdNAnnoyed, I have done significant cleanup to the article, but it will need complete resourcing given none of the sources are in an accepted encyclopedic format. Furthermore, the sections are non-standard and the remaining sections will need to be rewritten from scratch. There is likely enough source material and citations for an article; however, given the article's condition it should not be in main space right now, rather in draft space. Editchecker123 ( talk) 03:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the article trimming, would the nominator be okay with draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Well, I try not to see these discussions as an eternal battle between "Keep" and "Delete" but is this content substantial and of any use to the project, now or in the future. I'm sure that POV is not codified in policy anywhere but, for me, it helps me understand when articles are really crap and need to go and when, in another case, time in Draft space might eventually lead to something worthwhile for our readers. But thanks for the support. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Artlist

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

The coverage is either routine, such as funding news, etc., or it is in unreliable sources. As such, it clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. US-Verified ( talk) 20:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • KEEP - has plenty of sources, many more available. Way more coverage available than a "trivial mention" as in WP:CORPDEPTH. Company is still a healthy active corporation and is generating new products in the media field. Checking the stats, the page gets 150 views a day so, it is certainly notable. Could use an update and some exposition on the products but the page is protected and with all the issues, I am sure it would get flagged as advertorial.
Blarneyfife7 ( talk) 21:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: most of the sources are repeated multiple times, and many of the sources do not include authors which makes it difficult to establish independence for WP:Reliable sources
Editchecker123 ( talk) 03:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
KEEP - The sources here are OK, others could be added including https://fxhome.com/news/artlist-acquires-fxhome but there are no end of online sources. There are currently sources that meet criteria of WP:SIRS but this could be improved further. Artlist is a highly regarded company in the creative space, with millions of users and growing products, so the need for representation on Wikipedia will only increase over time. KirstieT ( talk) 08:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC) — KirstieT ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Can you please link 2 or preferably 3 sources that meet WP:SIRS. I believe I looked at all 30 in the article and couldn't find a single one, but I may have missed them. I've no criticism or doubt of the company itself. However, especially with companies, without such sources it's hard to uphold pillars 1 and 2 — siro χ o 08:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
KEEP - There are actually thousands of independent reviews on the company done by professional content creators 11:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.152.55 ( talk)
KEEP - Sources seem reliable to me, however if the WP:SIRS criteria are thought to be shaky, then it can be a good idea to WP:STUBIFY the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:FE13:8400:725A:CF6B:567F:2D3A ( talk) 11:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even ignoring the comments by accounts with 1 edit (to this AFD), I'm seeing "Weak Delete" or "Leaning Delete" and given the pushback from SPAs, I'd like to see a stronger consensus before closing this discussion. Of course, another closer might view things differently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ignore the pushback. Do what feels right. :-)   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
An admin, doing "what feels right", without the backing of editor consensus, can get you called to WP:Deletion review for a cavity inspection. Very unpleasant. Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Yikes. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 00:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
👍 Like - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs) 17:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strongest possible delete. TWL wasn't working for me over the weekend, so I decided to wait even though I was mostly done. At this point though, I give up. Open a case request on me, I don't care. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 02:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Please delete: This article doesn't just fail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, it's also written like and advert and almost all accounts contributing are either single-purpose, or are paid contributors (both banned and following the policy). It would be best to delete, even if notable, so that it can be rewritten without COI, and to avoid the article reading like an advert. - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs) 17:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NCORP and HighKing. NB: I was going to close this as delete, but since I've edited the article, decided that it was preferable to let someone else do that. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    All this is laughable that this article could ever be recreated without using the same references or doing exactly the same work, People disguising they are paid editors and attacking a page so they can try and grab it when it goes back to upwork or to try and get them on a monthly plan. You are thieves thinking these guys want to pay three or 4 times for an article.. You are ruining your own platform and AI will soon prove without a doubt you are all doing paid editing, if it hasnt already and the network admins are just hiding it from you. This article is in a half dozen different categories.. Cant wait.. Going to suggest it to arb and the foundation, AI be used to identify admins and editors hiding UPE. Time for honoring yourself will soon be over highness. 47.153.142.52 ( talk) 03:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment Changes were made and the article has added significant references.. Let me also remind you that this will be a sure thing entry into the hebrew edition and then it could easily be moved here without any issues.. 47.153.142.52 ( talk) 04:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The fact this is an Israeli startup that has made these contributions from a country so small... also makes it inherently notable. 47.153.142.52 ( talk) 04:20, 19 July 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 The All-American Rejects. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Chris Gaylor

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

No indication of individual notability; WP:NM#C6 doesn't apply since no indication that Hushmoney is notable either. jlwoodwa ( talk) 20:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Toxic Gossip Train

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

Non-notable music piece, could perhaps merge into the article about the individual. Has not charted. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect or Delete I created this article under the impression that this was an official single released by Colleen Ballinger but since it has been stated by Ballinger's legal representatives that the single was illegally uploaded to Ballinger's official accounts by a third party. While the article could be reworked into an article about the video in which the song was sung, "hi.", this seems unusual to me. I do think this will be considered one of the most infamous "apology" videos in the future, due to the news coverage, the fact that she sings a 10 minute song as her "apology" and because she did not really apologize at all in it. However, other notable infamous YouTuber apology videos (e.g. Laura Lee, Tati Westbrook, Logan Paul, James Charles, Shane Dawson, Jeffree Star) do not have Wikipedia articles. I think the information featured in this article can be summarized in the Colleen Ballinger article, as were the videos for the aforementioned YouTubers.
Andthereitis ( talk) 06:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Emma Essex

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

Non-notable musician, can only find the usual social media links, no news for this individual. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete lack of reliable sourcing. The article cites two sources: Mobygames.com is an indiscriminate directory that provides no significant coverage, and Livore.it is a music review site with a short history - and no established track record of reliability. This doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST - MrOllie ( talk) 21:34, 13 July 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 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Mohammed Haruna

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

This BLP is very poorly sourced and shows no sign of passing WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. There are passing mentions of a footballer for King Faisal with this name, see Ghana Sports Page, but stats sites like Pulse Sports confirm that this other Haruna was born in 2002. Neither player of this name seems to have sufficient coverage for an article and certainly the 1988 one is not notable. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:34, 13 July 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 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Gabriele Bernasconi

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

Footballer that has played mostly in the 4th and 5th tiers of Swiss football and has no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. In my searches, I found Urner Wochenblatt, which is just an image caption, and Chalcio. The independent content in the Chalcio article is just (translated) With Gabriele Bernasconi – the least beaten goalkeeper among those in the six rounds of the category ... Raised in Lugano as a footballer, our (Photo AC Taverne) made it all the way through the Juventus youth academy and three years in the first team. The rest is just pure Q&A and quotes. Even if this article were considered acceptable, GNG and SPORTBASIC require multiple sources showing significant coverage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. And I hope these valuable sources find their way into the article. I didn't follow the suggestion to Merge this article but as far as I can see in the comments, the Merge target doesn't exist yet. Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Yasuj Chain Dam

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBUILD. Possible redirect to whatever body of water it connects to.... which isn't even noted in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/ Rational 18:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I don't want to straight up !vote keep since I haven't personally reviewed or searched for non-English sources, but power plants almost always will receive a level of coverage, and it seems probable it can be sourced using sources in the local language. SportingFlyer T· C 21:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I think these are small plants but nevertheless interesting. Our article says this chain of run-of-river is near Sisakht. If you look at the Google Maps satellite view, this is a hilly, arid location with some big creeks (or small rivers) and small canals. On those streams, you'll see some of these structures. What's harder to find is the refs that I know should be out there. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 22:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Google translation of our Farsi (Persian) article
  • Bostani, Fardin (August 1998). "Engineering Geological Investigations of the Master Plan of Pul Klu-Yasuj River Chain Power Plants". Geological survey of Iran. Retrieved 13 July 2023. Google translation from Farsi.
  • This translated article gives details to expand our article with info on individual structures. (Archived Farsi version)
Meets notability requirements and has information for significant expansion.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 23:05, 13 July 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 Eliyahu M. Goldratt. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The Choice (Goldratt book)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010, and has no sources cited. Could be merged to Eliyahu M. Goldratt or theory of constraints as an WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 13 July 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 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ahmad Nasir Safi

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

I found no sources in ProQuest or internet searches, including Persian searches. He played at a very low level in Germany but I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV there either. Does not seem to pass WP:SPORTBASIC #5, which is the minimum requirement for any sportsperson. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:58, 13 July 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 War of Mutina. Star Mississippi 01:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Octavian's march on Rome

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

The entire article is a WP:CFORK which wholly overlaps with the War of Mutina. This march is described by no reliable sources as a civil war. The extent of the reliable sources (ie not uncritically copying Appian) is also very sparse on the specifics of Octavian marching on the city: there is no basis for an independent article. All the text The vast majority of the text in the article at present is also WP:COPYVIO as it simply copies without attribution my work on War of Mutina; what isn't my text is entirely unreferenced. Ifly6 ( talk) 17:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Oppose: the topics are sufficiently different (the march is part of the war, not the same thing), so by WP:RELAR, having both pages is acceptable. The point about civil war (whilst valid, and you should make this change) is irrelevant. Godtres ( talk) 10:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Can you cite any sources showing that the march has received enough coverage to justify a separate article? Avilich ( talk) 23:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This clearly is a WP:POVFORK (or charitably, a WP:REDUNDANTFORK). The recently created page content is heavily copied from War of Mutina. Although there is some re-arrangement of the material, it constitutes WP:COPYWITHIN, unaltered copied text being all the way through this. Yet there is no attribution, so this actually constitutes a copy-vio. The copying is not in compliance with the Wikipedia CC attribution licence. Although this could be repaired, the question is why we need this article when it is all covered in its source article. The answer is it is not. There is nothing here that is not there, and I am unconvinced by the argument that this is merely a related subject. The page is currently covering the same subject. Thus a POVFORK/REDUNDANTFORK. I also notice the references have all been copied as in text SFN citations only, and the bibliography has not been copied across. As such, this is technically unreferenced (and I am not reassured that the page creator has verified any of these references, as they have not apparently noticed this issue). Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 18:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Aside from the blatant violation of WP:CFORK and WP:COPYWITHIN and the other points raised above, there is only one paragraph actually describing the march. There is no reason why the march should be described separately from the conflict in which it took place. Avilich ( talk) 23:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete I agree that it is a clear violation of WP:CFORK, which I was not aware of when I created the article. Romulus Cyrus ( talk) 08:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Institute of Cape Wine Masters

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

Punchline is "unsalvageable promotional content". I see nothing other than self-promoting, probably paid, editing throughout the article history. There is very little that can be saved and I think it is better off deleted. MarcGarver ( talk) 16:22, 13 July 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 Associate international cricket in 2023#2023 Valletta Cup. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 Valletta Cup

2023 Valletta Cup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub of tournament with no reliable or independent sources to come close to passing WP:GNG or WP:CRIN. ESPN is a database, not a sign of notability. This event has pages from previous years, but all of those have at least some coverage in local media from one or more competing nations. Unfortunately this one does not (as yet) have any and hence fails WP:N and WP:RS. Bs1jac ( talk) 15:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Note, as it stands, I believe the redirect to Associate international cricket in 2023 should be restored until such time that notable sources are available. I did this earlier as a non-controversial change but the redirect was removed again (in good faith) and I don't want an edit war, hence the AfD. Bs1jac ( talk) 15:34, 13 July 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 13:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Veejay (software)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No RS/IS/SIGCOV sources. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No significant coverage, fails GNG and NSOFT. The google search provided by Onetimememorial does not contain any news coverage of this software; the articles about VJing as a concept do not mention this program at all (at least, the ones I get back from doing that search). I've looked at the sources Siroxo provided and both appear to be broad surveys of software and not significant coverage of this program specifically. The ACM source mentions Veejay only once in passing (Outstanding packages include FLxER, FreeJ, Gephex and Veejay, all of which work with video files and streams in ways analogous to the actions of audio disc jockeys). The IEEE source's abstract suggests it's a broad survey of 150,000 open source projects, but I do not have access to the full text. If @ Siroxo or anyone else can provide sections of the IEEE article that do constitute significant coverage of the program I'd reconsider. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 16:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 08:55, 19 July 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 Illumitoon Entertainment. ✗ plicit 14:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Barry Watson (producer)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No IS sources. Looks to be attempting notability via inheritance, which is not allowed. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

WAsP

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No appropriate sources provided. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:24, 13 July 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 14:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Suzan Sabancı Dinçer

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

This hagiography of a living person was created in 2008. Appears to be a rough translation from a language I don't speak, likely Turkish. It was AfD'ed on 28 June 2008. At that AfD, the creator said: "Keep. It is a new entry and It will be edited." Although I'm mindful that there is no deadline, I do feel it's pertinent to point out that this editor hasn't touched the article at any time in the fifteen (15) years since he made that representation. The only genuinely reliable source cited in the article is the Forbes rich list that tells us she's a billionaire from a billionaire family, and our criteria require more than one reliable source. — S Marshall  T/ C 09:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep Limited English coverage [12]. Give it a pass based on the explanation from the Turkish language site. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep The sources in the Turkish article should be sufficient to establish notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:13, 16 July 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 23:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

John G. Wilson

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No acceptable sources. Company puff piece. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Incidentally, the somewhat humorous note above is from the firm's extant website [14]. — siro χ o 01:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Gnews has all kinds of people with this name in 19th Century newspapers, none for this fellow. Kudos on never having flown a toothbrush either. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:15, 13 July 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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Alliance University

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

Doesn't meets the WP:N criteria, the references used are also unreliable or are by the university themselves (for example their website). Ratnahastin ( talk) 13:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I have made a start on a cleanup, but it needs work from someone nearer to it who has access to sources. -- Bduke ( talk) 02:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
It may be open source and suitably licenced for sharing. I know a lot of them do that but worth checking. scope_creep Talk 10:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't see any language releasing the content on their pages. Since it appears likely to be kept and this won't impact assessment here, I'm going to stub it back on those grounds. Noting here for transparency. Star Mississippi 13:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Note, the ancient rev dels were not me, those had been done. I just handled what had been added this month. There seems to be some feuding in the history that I can't make heads or tails of. Star Mississippi 13:31, 21 July 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. Less Unless ( talk) 06:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Jayashree Patanekar

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Very poorly sourced. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 13 July 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 Market (economics). Star Mississippi 01:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Market abolitionism

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

Upon stumbling upon this article, the scope immediately seemed vague to me. I quickly found that many of the cited sources had nothing to do with the subject. Of the cited sources that do, they all appear to be primary sources from people directly associated with the subject. They also do not appear to actually use the term "market abolitionism" and instead offer critiques of markets, with only one passing use of the term "market abolitionist". I looked for sources on Google Scholar, but mostly found sources that appear to be completely unrelated. [15] As this article doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines, I'm proposing it for deletion. Grnrchst ( talk) 14:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Robin Hahnel (2007). "The Case against Markets". Journal of Economic Issues. 41 (4). Taylor & Francis: 1139–1159.
  2. ^ Adrian J. Walsh (1998). "Market Pathology and the Range of Commodity Exchange: A Preliminary Sketch". Public Affairs Quarterly. 12 (2). University of Illinois Press: 203–219.
  3. ^ Adrian Walsh; Richard Giulianotti (2006). Ethics, Money and Sport: This Sporting Mammon. Taylor & Francis. p. 19. ISBN  9781134317271.
  4. ^ Geoffrey M. Hodgson (2018). Wrong Turnings: How the Left Got Lost. University of Chicago Press. p. 194. ISBN  9780226505886.

SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Market (economics). My browser crashed and I lost my full source analysis but suffice it to say that the above four sources appear to invoke places where "market" and "abolition" are used in the same sentence but does not establish a body of thought known as "market abolitionism". If anything, these sources are either proposing (1) a socialist planning framework for replacing market systems, or (2) critiquing existing market systems by way of alternatives. None of these establishes "market abolitionism" as a unified body of thought but the critique can be covered as philosophical counterpoints within the existing article on economic markets. Though note that nothing in the existing article is reliably sourced for merger. czar 05:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Would support a redirect. I also looked through those sources and would agree with Czar's analysis. Tbh the only one I would say includes significant coverage is Walsh & Giulianotti, but they talk about it in an almost entirely different context than this existing article. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 10:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Market (economics), per Czar. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk) 22:28, 18 July 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 Billy Corgan. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Starchildren

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

Lack of reliable sources, no real notability. I tried redirecting to Billy Corgan as a compromise, but this was rudely reverted. Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 14:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

You accused me of performing an end run around deletion. Is that not rude? Rather than assume good faith, you accused me of being sneaky, which is blatantly false.
Read the articles you seem to think give this project notability; they barely mention Starchildren. How does that warrant keeping an article about a project that never did anything besides playing a few shows? Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 13:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Billy Corgan - I agree with the nom that the sources being cited in the article do not count as coverage for the topic, as they barely mention it. They have no actual discussion or coverage on it, they simply have a single sentence stating that it was a side project of Billy Corgan. Searching for additional sources only turn up the same kind of coverage - single sentence mentions of the band being a very brief side project of Corgan's that released one original song. It is already listed in the infobox on Corgan's article, though a sentence or two can probably stand to be added to the body of the article mentioning it. Rorshacma ( talk) 14:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Billy Corgan - It's true that Starchildren were mentioned in a couple of reliable publications, but as nothing but a little-known and unorganized side project. They only had two songs and three shows, and at least one of those shows was a gimmick in which some members of Smashing Pumpkins amazed the crowd by opening for themselves under a different name. This is of fancruft interest to the Smashing Pumpkins community, but there is no concrete or even encyclopedic information that can support an article here. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 17:41, 14 July 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 see a clear consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

2022 Carlos Alcaraz tennis season

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

Article violates WP:NOTSTATS. Everything significant in the tables can and should be summarised, in prose, at Carlos Alcaraz. There is nothing especially notable about this season. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Spain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Number 1 players generally are eligible for these sorts of articles, I'm not sure why this would be an exception. SportingFlyer T· C 21:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, zero reason to have a separate article fork. We don't have season articles for individuals in any other sports besides tennis and cricket, and given the active consensus for eliminating the latter it's clear these tenniscruft articles are unencyclopedic too. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    There's a huge difference betwen tennis and cricket. Cricket is a team sport and most people follow teams rather than individuals; tennis is an individual sport and fans follow their favourite players across the tour. Iffy★ Chat -- 11:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    We don't have season articles for sportspeople in other individual sports either, even though every single high-profile athlete even in some team sports receives just as much or more coverage during a given season. JoelleJay ( talk) 17:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Season articles for individual teams (eg. in Association Football) still remain. I do not think it is the most appropriate to make a comparison on that basis between team sports and individual sports, when one individual cannot necessarily influence the entire outcome of a team performance on a consistent basis. There is also a reasonable argument to be made that singles tennis is the most prominent individual sport in the world in terms of outreach and popularity. 115.66.66.93 ( talk) 04:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The only issue with the article as it stands is that the Yearly summary section has no text in it. This is an issue that can be solved by improving the article, not deleting it. Iffy★ Chat -- 11:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, this seems to be precisely as envisioned by WP:NOTSTATS: Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. I'm not really seeing a rationale for deletion here, let alone a policy-based one. -- Visviva ( talk) 04:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – both as a standard split off and an encyclopaedic topic that is quite easily notable. Should, however, include prose commentary on the season, but that is not a rationale for deletion. J947 † edits 11:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ J947, what about the rationale that IRS SIGCOV of the season as a whole has not been identified to demonstrate the topic actually passes GNG? JoelleJay ( talk) 22:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ JoelleJay: I'm not sure why coverage of the season as a whole would be necessary? It's a splitoff article from Carlos Alcaraz that can go into more detail than the main page. It's just for convenience; it is helpful but not necessary that the season is consistently discussed in itself. What matters is that across the season there is enough coverage to sustain an article. And of course there is. J947 † edits 22:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Splitting is permitted only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia. The topic does need to receive GNG coverage as any other page would. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Nothing about notability as a whole being required. If rs A has sigcov on John Doe's tennis career, rs B has sigcov on John Doe's scientific endeavours, and rs C has sigcov on his brief acting career, and the link between these roles of John Doe is only mentioned in passing, then John Doe is notable irregardless of whether he isn't covered as a whole. Because that is the job of an encyclopaedia – to connect evidence together and provide a broad overview of a topic. There's a wealth of information to cover on Alcaraz, far too great for one article, and splitting attempts should not be thwarted by a narrow interpretation of an information page. It makes sense that his famous seasons are discussed in separate articles, and perhaps for lesser seasons cover two seasons in one article, whether or not any RS has happened to discuss "Alcaraz' 2025–26 tennis seasons". It is also quite probable that there is sigcov on this season as a whole, but that's not the question. J947 † edits 23:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I do not think it is fair to claim that there was nothing notable about this season, considering Alcaraz broke the record for the Youngest Player to ever be ranked No. 1 on the ATP rankings. He also won a grand slam. He also broke the records of the youngest player to win the Miami and Madrid Open, both of which are Masters 1000 events and are only second in prestige to the Grand Slams. Seasons like Novak Djokovic’s 2009 season and Rafael Nadal’s 2006 season also have articles but are not being considered for deletion, despite these players arguably achieving less in those respective years than Alcaraz in 2022. 115.66.66.93 ( talk) 04:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. There is literally not a single source discussed here or in the article that covers his "season". Without such sources being identified there is no P&G-based rationale to keep this article. JoelleJay ( talk) 17:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Alcaraz's 2022 season is notable for him becoming the youngest year-end World No. 1 in the Open Era of tennis - a record that had previously been held by Lleyton Hewitt for nearly 20 years. Throughout that season, Carlos accomplished a number of other feats - such as being the youngest-ever champion of a few prestigious tournaments - which is of interest to tennis fans and students of the sport alike. If anything, I'd rather condense the corresponding section of his main Wikipedia page than get rid of this one. Chernorizets ( talk) 02:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Chernorizets, the subject still needs to meet GNG as a standalone topic. Do you have any sources of SIGCOV in independent (so not from ATP or any sports org) secondary RS on this season as a whole? I'm also curious how you arrived here with only ~115 edits... JoelleJay ( talk) 16:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ JoelleJay I'm a big tennis fan, and in particular a fan of Carlos and his meteoric ascent to the top of men's tennis, so I noticed the deletion proposal banner on the page not long after it had been placed there. I'm going to gloss over the passive-aggressive undertones of your last sentence because, as a good friend likes to say, you do you.
    This whole discussion is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Only current, and in some cases former, world No. 1 tennis players have dedicated articles about their tennis seasons on Wikipedia. That's a tiny percentage of all the players in general, and of those for which there are articles in particular. It in no way "overburdens" the encyclopedia or detracts from its tone. Season-specific articles are of great significance for tennis fans, because they often depict historic rivalries, achievements in the sport, changing of the guard, etc. It is part of tennis culture, and some of the individual matches themselves have articles when they've reached sufficient notability.
    Even if you wanted to make a broader argument that per-season tennis player articles should not exist, or that they should be brought to a higher standard, proposing the deletion of the current world no. 1 player's historic 2022 season seems like a strangely selective, piecemeal way of going about it. Start with the players that have multiple such articles - like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic - and observe the reactions of the community. Chernorizets ( talk) 21:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    None of these arguments are policy- or guideline-based (and in fact are solidly WP:ATA). To have a standalone article on wikipedia, a subject must meet WP:N, and that requires SIGCOV in independent secondary RS. No one has put forward a single source meeting those criteria, let alone the multiple required. We are an encyclopedia, not a statistics directory or fandom. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I agree that the article can be improved with sources, and the sources fortunately do exist. That, however, is a different conversation from "just delete it". I see no issue with adding the appropriate notices on the page that it needs to be brought up to a better standard, and in fact I've recommended as much on the Carlos Alcaraz talk page (as well as moving relevant content here). Chernorizets ( talk) 22:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The kid won a Grandslam at 19, became world number 1 at 19 and finished year end number 1 at 19, in addition to numerous Masters 1000 wins. Definitely keep. Its the first top season of a historic tennis player

Exxcalibur808 ( talk) 19:15, 16 July 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 14:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Federation of Anarchist Communists

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

This article has existed as a stub, without any references to reliable sources, more or less in the same form since 2005. I checked through my own sources at hand and couldn't find anything other than a single passing reference in The Continuum Companion to Anarchism. As this article appears not to meet our general notability guidelines, I'm proposing it for deletion. Grnrchst ( talk) 13:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: I can't access the above source, sorry. I did find some extra information in Black Flame, but it's very sparse. Summary style would say: FdCA was formed during the 1980s while many new platformist organisations were being established (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 259); it joined the International Libertarian Solidarity (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 224); it supports "historical materialism" (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 107); and it advocates "organisational dualism" (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 126). This doesn't seem like enough for an article, even a stub. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 11:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    imo even basic stubs like that are useful, especially if the information isn't available in continuous paragraphs and is scattered through a book like the one you used to write that summary. But that's still only one source, so... -- asilvering ( talk) 17:06, 15 July 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 13:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Kerala Samajam Model School

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 12:49, 13 July 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 13:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Olympic Primary School

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. The guardian article listed in references, is not enough for GNG and NORG. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 12:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Previously linked in the article: https://kenyacradle.com/olympic-primary-school/ is a wikipedia mirror, which literally copied the article to it. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 12:48, 13 July 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 will move the film article here. Star Mississippi 01:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

2001: A Space Odyssey

2001: A Space Odyssey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the contents are (or should be) in 2001: A Space Odyssey (film), which should also be moved here. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per previous.
Godtres ( talk) 14:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Brachy08 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:21, 14 July 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 undeletion of these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Belgium in Eurovision Choir

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

Additional articles in the same series for consideration:

Denmark in Eurovision Choir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Germany in Eurovision Choir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Latvia in Eurovision Choir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slovenia in Eurovision Choir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wales in Eurovision Choir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV does not appear to be met with this series of articles. All relevant information is already contained within Eurovision Choir, Eurovision Choir of the Year 2017 and Eurovision Choir 2019, and separate articles outlining specific information for each country is unnecessary. The contest is currently on permanent hiatus, meaning that opportunities to develop these articles are non-existant, and there is very limited coverage outside of the "Eurovision bubble" which would support continuing to host these articles. Additionally, previous consensus has already been reached to delete country articles for similar contests, e.g. Turkvision Song Contest (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyumen Oblast in the Turkvision Song Contest). Sims2aholic8 ( talk) 08:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Latvia, Slovenia, and Wales. Sims2aholic8 ( talk) 09:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If you strip out the "origins of the event" section which is information from the main Eurovision Choir article (and is a copy/paste in each of these articles), you're left with some prose saying the country participated, a table with two lines of participants, and a second table with two lines saying who commented on the performances on tv/radio. I find the commentators in the context of Choir to be WP:CRUFT. The participants are already included in each year's article ( 2017 and 2019). If there were more than two contests, perhaps these pages or a "list of entries" page could be appropriate. However, it's easy to just look at each year's page to see the country in question's participant. I see little need for these pages in a practical sense. With the future of the event unlikely, a redirect to keep open the possibility of expansion seems unnecessary. Grk1011 ( talk) 14:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ralph René

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

Self-published conspiracy theorist who fails WP:GNG. Of the sources given, two are from subject's own website, three are IMDB TV listings, and two are patent sheets. No secondary sources. Rift ( talk) 07:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: The IMDb listings are a bit misleading; I think the editor who added the citation to The Truth Behind the Moon Landings: Stranger Than Fiction intended to cite the documentary itself, not its entry on IMDb. However, René's appearance in a documentary is not independent coverage of him, and the same goes for an appearance on Penn & Teller. My BEFORE search yielded mentions in two articles, both of which appeared in numerous publications: 1 and 2. I would argue that they are both passing mentions, as neither cover René in particular detail or with any attention beyond briefly presenting his views as an example of moon landing conspiracies. Actualcpscm ( talk) 09:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Reading the article, it's clear that almost the entire thing is based on the subject's self-promotion. Sources confirm does not meet WP:BASIC — siro χ o 11:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. They placed a reflector on the moon, and we have photos from orbit of the landing sites. This appears PROMO, but he's been deceased for over a decade now, may he rest in peace. I see no sourcing we can use, beyond proof he was on TV a few times. Heck, I've been on TV. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
While I very much agree that the moon landing was not staged, I don‘t think that directly affects notability of this individual. You know, even if it turned out that the moon isn‘t real, that wouldn‘t make them notable. I guess. FBDB Actualcpscm ( talk) 16:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Deleting for lack of any coverage in RS is the reason. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:00, 13 July 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 E. C. Stearns & Company. As an aside, for the closer's sake, please provide a link to the Merge or Redirect target you are proposing. Yes, I can go look for it, which is what I did, but there is always the possibility that I find a different page that the one participants are desiring. It's also faster if you just provide a link to the target you are arguing for. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Avis Stearns Van Wagenen

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

Fails WP:BIO: no sources. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to the Stearns company article. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:25, 13 July 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! 07:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

OrSiSo

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

Routine news articles. The company doesn't have the significant coverage required according to WP:NCORP. US-Verified ( talk) 08:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 13 July 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 Gnomic poetry. Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Gnome (rhetoric)

Gnome (rhetoric) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"Gnome" is used by various authors as a synonym for either maxim, proverb, or aphorism. It is not a distinct concept, and consequently should not be the subject of an article, per WP:NOTDICT. There is no clear redirect target and the disambiguator makes it an unlikely search term, so deletion seems the best option. (I don't feel that a soft redirect to Wiktionary would be helpful in this case, as there is already a Wiktionary link at Gnome (disambiguation), a more likely landing point for anyone searching for a definition.)
This is a contested PROD; it was challenged by Kvng on the grounds that "WP:NOTDICT can be controversial". Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 05:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per siroxo. This seems like a good use case for a broad-concept article, in view of the scholarly discussion of what exactly a gnome is and whether/how it should be distinguished from a maxim (much of which seems, interestingly, to be particular to the Anglo-Saxonist community, e.g. here is a review of a book that I don't have access to that discusses the topic; here is said author's earlier MPhil thesis that also delves into the definition of "gnome" at considerable length; here is another article with considerable what-is-a-gnome discussion). In general, leaning too heavily on NOTDICT to the exclusion of BCA tends to disadvantage our coverage of fields (including e.g. most of the humanities, soft social sciences, and law) in which much of the scholarly action is precisely about the disputation of terms. -- Visviva ( talk) 18:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    On review of the arguments and sources I'm convinced that the BCA of my dreams is at least equally viable at Gnomic poetry (which already has some brief discussion of the English medieval literature that seems to be associated with the more specific definitions of "gnome"), so I'll join in supporting a redirect to gnomic poetry. -- Visviva ( talk) 05:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Klaus Berger (theologian), who coined the term. Right now, the article has only one source -- Berger -- so there's nothing that couldn't just be moved over there. If someone wants to build it out later, no prejudice against them doing so. With no independent secondary sourcing in the article at all, however, it's better elsewhere. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Rhododendrites what do you think of my merge alternate proposal below? — siro χ o 06:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I didn't get deep enough in the sourcing to know. If you see that the specific term "gnome" as defined by Berger and used in rhetoric has a connection to "gnomic poetry" and not to any other merge target other than Berger, I don't object, though I'd still default to sending it to the Berger article and defer to more knowledgeable editors to make bold changes from there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • This isn't an article - it is a definition of an obscure meaning of the term, and nothing else. Not sure if a redirect to the creator of the term is better than a redirect to Wiktionary, or just deleting it. Walt Yoder ( talk) 00:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • (retracted my above !vote) I've investigated the scholar results a bit, and I think this term is heavily enough influenced by its own roots in gnomic poetry that the article be merged to that location (until an editor is able to split out more than a stub). — siro χ o 01:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, we have editors arguing for Delete, Keep and Merge to two different article targets. In three words, no consensus yet. And closers do not issue Super Votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete does not appear to have caught on as a term. Vaguely DICDEF. Super !votes sound incredible! Oaktree b ( talk) 15:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - WP:STUBS are not a problem. I'm confident we'll eventually determine the best organization for this material. There's no rush to delete. ~ Kvng ( talk) 13:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Kvng: I don't think anyone has said that the article should be deleted because it's a stub. My concern, echoed by Oaktree and Walt Yoder, was that this is a dictionary definition, and WP:NOTDICT (policy) says that this is a valid reason for deletion. Others have argued that the content could be moved elsewhere, or that the page could be rewritten into a broad-concept article, but if you're saying that page should simply be kept as-is, it would be helpful if you could explain why you don't think NOTDICT applies. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 15:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Siroxo said (until an editor is able to split out more than a stub). There doesn't seem to be a consensus here about what to do so I'm suggesting we kick the question out of AfD and let editors do whatever reorganization is needed without the threat of deletion. WP:NOTCLEANUP WP:NODEADLINES. ~ Kvng ( talk) 18:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    My goal with the merge suggestion is to provide a better article to a reader who is trying to learn about this concept. The current stub would be adequate (IMO) if there were no good merge target, but it's better to merge or redirect given the presence of a good target. — siro χ o 21:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Rhododendrites and Siroxo: I hope you don't mind, but in the interest of avoiding a no-consensus outcome, I'd like to discuss this a little further. When proposing a merge, the obvious question is WP:Merge what?. The article Gnomic poetry already defines the word "gnome"; there is nothing in the opening sentence of gnome (rhetoric) that is missing from gnomic poetry, except the claim that gnomes are usually in hexameter. This claim is not supported by the EB source, and I think it's generally bad practice to merge unsourced content. As for the two sentences about Berger, I can't see a place for them in that article. So as it stands, I don't see anything from gnome (rhetoric) that should be merged to gnomic poetry.
    Turning to Rhododendrites' proposal: I don't really understand the article's claim about Klaus Berger. The use of the word "gnome" to mean "maxim" is definitely ancient Greek, so Berger didn't invent it. He may have used it in a new way or brought it into prominence or something, but if so, the primary source isn't going to verify that claim. Besides which, same issue as before: I don't see how any of the content from gnome (rhetoric) could be worked into Klaus Berger (theologian). Possibly something could be written about gnomes in the Klaus Berger article, but that would require research to be done and new content to be written, at which point you're not really proposing a merge but rather an expansion of one article and the redirection of the other.
    So I don't think a merge would be appropriate, but I'm happy to !vote redirect rather than delete if there's a feeling that the content ought to be preserved. Gnomic poetry seems to be the most helpful target from the reader's perspective. If you (Rhododendrites and siroχo) agree, then this might bring us closer to a consensus. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 16:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm fine with a redirect to gnomic poetry. — siro χ o 20:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Walt Yoder and Oaktree b: Following on from the above, would either of you be willing to support a redirect to Gnomic poetry, to help us arrive at a consensus (and to make life easier for our hard-working AFD closers)? No obligation to change your !vote or comment further if you don't wish to. (Also pinging Visviva so they aren't left out of the developing discussion, but again, no obligation to comment.) Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 05:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
That's fine, the redirect. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Basware

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. Refs are routine business news. scope_creep Talk 06:27, 29 June 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 06:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

A single reference isn't ample coverage. That is you mistaking PR and paid coverage for valid coverage that doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS. The Finnish source comes from an interview and a press-release and the book while admittedly a secondary source is content that comes directly from the company website and is not that independent. scope_creep Talk 05:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Based on the limited preview to the Aamulehti piece, I'd be inclined to agree with Scope_creep, or at least discount it heavily. With the first sentence starting with Basware says it will.., it has all the hallmarks of a journalist taking a press release and rephrasing it.
    I've tried to look for better sourcing in Finnish language newspapers, but it's a pretty rough going. There's tons of hits, but almost all of it is things like this where the company is mentioned briefly, or things like this which are obviously based solely on a company press release.
    I didn't look at every hit, but the ones that struck out as different are these two news stories (both paywalled, unfortunately), which are 408 and 456 words about an information security problem in a Basware product and a whistleblower coming out with details about the problem. The pieces involve commentary by entities like FICORA's National Cyber Security Center and Finnish Financial Supervisory Authority .
    I don't feel quite comfortable enough with WP:NCORP to straight-up !vote here, but I think this is borderline at best. - Ljleppan ( talk) 07:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for that. I translated a whole bunch of Finish articles that mentioned the company as part of the WP:BEFORE, and there was nothing of depth. There is a big PR and corporate social media presence because it is a software company. It needs to do that to survive, but there is little outside that domain. scope_creep Talk 07:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Yeah, that pretty much sums up my feelings as well. I guess I'll mark myself down as a weak delete for now: if the two Helsingin Sanomat pieces about a single infosec issue are the best there is, it's not a lot. Ljleppan ( talk) 08:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry but I'm not seeing a consensus here. Perhaps another week will help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep per Visviva. Okoslavia ( talk) 10:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Lets examine the first two blocks of references:
  • Ref 1 [17] Company site. Fails WP:SIRS Non-rs.
  • Ref 2 [18] Annual report. Fails WP:SIRS Non-rs.
  • Ref 3 [19] Paywalled. Basware makes a profit every year.
  • Ref 4 404'd
  • Ref 5 404'd
  • Ref 6 404'd
  • Ref 7 404'd
  • Ref 8 Paywalled. The trans-title tag states "Basware made acquisitions in Germany worth more than 12 million euros" That is routine coverage, covered by WP:CORPDEPTH. It fails that policy.
  • Ref 9 404'd
  • Ref 10 [20] Press-release. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Ref 11 [21] States its a press-release Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 12 [22] Basware tribunal Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS

I don't have any faith that the first paywalled reference in any good when compared to the quality of the other references. It currently an advert and fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep Talk 10:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Refs 4-7 and 9 are all from the company's own website. Tivi, the publication of ref #8 is at best a mixed bag (to the point that while I have access to almost every newspaper in Finland through work, we don't seem to have bothered to subscribe to it), and absent evidence to the contrary I'd presume the story it fails CORPDEPTH. Ljleppan ( talk) 10:42, 17 July 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. After three relists there is a clear consensus that subject passes GNG. (non-admin closure) Okoslavia ( talk) 05:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Dance cover

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

Non-notable topic; article itself little to no citations and full of original research. lullabying ( talk) 02:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Verging on No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: Call it a WP:HEY Keep if you want. The sources currently in the article are more than sufficient for establishing notability. I'm sure there's a lot more to be said about this trend and its history, too. Actualcpscm ( talk) 10:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sources have been found to establish notability. Consider moving to Cover dance since that's the term used in most sources. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I tend to agree with the move. From my little research while improving the article, "cover dance" is the activity/hobby/community/etc, whereas "dance cover" is the actual performance and/or recording, so cover dance is the broader term. We could probably just do a WP:BOLD move after the AFD closes. — siro χ o 03:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the article's current refs. Thanks for adding them, @ Siroxo!
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 03:45, 14 July 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 Doctor Who villains. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Sil (Doctor Who)

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

Despite some potential notability, given that the character was the star of a film, the character's article does not currently meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 02:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of Doctor Who villains. Didn’t Sil appear more than once? I don’t really remember, but in any case it might be time to make a “not Tardis Data Core” essay Dronebogus ( talk) 22:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Blinovitch Limitation Effect, Destrii, Muriel Frost, Kadiatu Lethbridge-Stewart, Iris Wildthyme, Shayde, Fey Truscott-Sade, Sam Jones (Doctor Who), Molly O'Sullivan, Jason Kane (Doctor Who), Flip Jackson, Mila (Doctor Who), Charley Pollard, Evelyn Smythe, Thomas Brewster (Doctor Who), Abby (Doctor Who), Vislor Turlough, Rutan (Doctor Who), Draconian (Doctor Who), Sisterhood of Karn, Henry Gordon Jago, Professor George Litefoot, Forge (Doctor Who), Timewyrm, Threshold (Doctor Who), Coal Hill School, Nimrod (Doctor Who), Nobody No-One, Borusa, The Monk (Doctor Who), Polly (Doctor Who), Ben Jackson (Doctor Who), List of UNIT personnel, John and Gillian, Shalka Doctor, Sabbath (Doctor Who), Chris Cwej, Grandfather Paradox (Doctor Who), The Other (Doctor Who), Alan Jackson (The Sarah Jane Adventures), Vortis (Doctor Who), Thal (Doctor Who), Ogron, Werewolf (Doctor Who), Sil (Doctor Who), White Guardian, Mara (Doctor Who), Sabalom Glitz, Castellan (Doctor Who), Professor Edward Travers, Alpha Centauri (Doctor Who)
Such a mass deletion would significantly alter the coverage of Doctor Who on wikipedia. WikiProject Doctor Who was not informed beforehand. Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 15:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Sil (Doctor Who) has had clean-up templates (including notability) for well over a year. The Dr Who project automatically get notified of related deletion discussions. Sionk ( talk) 16:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC) reply
They did get such notifications. They got fifty-one of them over two days. What did you expect them to do in those circumstances? Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 16:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Anameofmyveryown, many of these AFD nominations have been withdrawn after I informed the nominator that I thought they were overwhelming AFD space. And I did inform the Doctor Who WikiProject yesterday when I saw all of the nominations, I posted a notice on their talk page (see here) which you know because you responded to my notice. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The operative word in my comment was "beforehand". The first AFD was lodged at 07:00, 01:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC). Your notice was posted 07:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC), which was 5hrs 21mins afterwards. Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 00:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply
It's normal for interested parties to be informed after a nomination, rather than beforehand. As I said above, many of these articles had issues that had been flagged up months beforehand. Sionk ( talk) 15:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply
WikiProject DW had years to clean those articles up. Thank you for noting that User:Pokelego999 deserves a barnstar for tackling this issue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get some consensus on the redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like other Doctor Who articles, we need some agreement on a redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 13 July 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 Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Mara (Doctor Who)

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

Despite some potential notability, subject is a minor recurring villain who's article is rather short and does not display GNG nor SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 02:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens Dronebogus ( talk) 22:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, two different redirect targets mentioned at List of Doctor Who characters is not suitable as it is a redirect itself.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like I said in my first relist, List of Doctor Who characters is not a suitable redirect target as it is, a redirect! Agree on another redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: if the list of characters isn't a suitable target, then List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens is fine. The target is briefly discussed there. Shooterwalker ( talk) 22:31, 13 July 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 Time Lord. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Castellan (Doctor Who)

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

Rather minor recurring character. Despite there being some sources, it doesn't seem to meet SIGCOV or GNG. Pokelego999 ( talk) 02:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Time Lord, since it seems to discuss a reoccurring aspect of TL culture and not a particular character. Dronebogus ( talk) 22:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Does not pass WP:SIGCOV without independent reception/analysis. Redirect would be a good WP:ATD if there is a suitable target. Shooterwalker ( talk) 02:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different redirect targets proposed. And List of Doctor Who characters won't be appropriate as it is a redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters so it's that article or Time Lord.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 10:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no agreement on redirection target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: Time Lord makes more sense, since the list is really just a series of one line redirects. Shooterwalker ( talk) 22:29, 13 July 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 03:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Jagran Public School, Lucknow

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

Created by a single purpose editor. Unreferenced and no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 03:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes I am hungry to delete it. Why not? Okoslavia ( talk) 22:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 13 July 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 List of public art in Shanghai. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Statue of Ma Zhanshan

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Zhang Side, notability is not established with substantive sources. Existence of art outdoors is not automatic notability and no basis to remove a prod without addressing the unacceptable lack of sources and GNG failure. Features in a park can also be included in the park article without stand-alone articles. Reywas92 Talk 03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Snak the Ripper

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

Has been to AfD before, closed for no agreement. I can't find anything beyond hyper-local sources that would support keeping this. Not meeting general or musician notability guidelines. Also, no new sources have turned up since the last nomination for AfD. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm wondering what has changed in the past 3 months since the last AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I'm genuinely surprised this doesn't pass WP:GNG more "clearly" (in the sense we have to debate this), but after review I think the sources available (a multitude of Canadian coverage from around the country at different time frames) still pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 21:16, 13 July 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 CSI: NY characters. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Adam Ross (CSI: NY)

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

Article uses unreliable sources (IMDB, I believe CSI: FIles is a fan page), a quick search on Google gives little to no results focusing on the character. Spinixster (chat!) 01:44, 6 July 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!) 01:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. All the current sources are user-generated content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qcne ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Adam Ross is a main character on a television series that has been off the air for ten years. There would have been limited news about him back then except from entertainment sources. There is less available now because websites purge old pages.
    As for CSI Files, yes it was set up for fans of the CSI franchise allowing them to discuss the episodes, characters, and actors. That part is fan-generated. But the site also contains news articles — most pulled from other sites, episode reviews detailing the various characters' situations and behavior, and interviews by freelance writers. That part is not fan-generated. Ducky Submarine ( talk) 20:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Ducky Submarine Check out WP:FICT. Just because a character is the main character in a popular show does not mean that the character is notable. The article is full of WP:Fancruft and there are no sources that demonstrate notability.
    An example of a notable character page similar to Adam Ross would be Ziva David; as you can see, the article also talks about her influence outside of the show. If you can't find sources to demonstrate the character's notability outside of CSI: NY, then I'm afraid the character doesn't warrant a page. Spinixster (chat!) 01:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Spinixster The Ziva David article is impressive. But if that is the standard for character pages few will make the cut. Not every article qualifies as "first class". That doesn't mean that they are not full of useful information for readers who are interested.
    As for notability outside of CSI: NY, Adam Ross, along with most other television characters, is only notable for what he does inside the actual show. He is just a character. Not warranting a New York Times article does not make his page of no value to readers. Ducky Submarine ( talk) 20:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Ducky Submarine Then Adam Ross does not warrant a page, per WP:NOTCATALOG. Again, from WP:FICT: The Wikipedia's general notability guideline is appropriate and sufficient for demonstrating the notability of fictional elements. Specifically, fictional elements are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources about the fictional element; when a fictional element is presumed notable, a separate article to cover that element is usually acceptable.
    I only used the Ziva David article as an example of a character that had an impact outside of the show; I did not say that Ziva David is the ideal character page, the page is honestly a big mess right now. Spinixster (chat!) 01:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Just going over the sources, most are either semi-reliable or unreliable. CSI Files is a tertiary blog source. As for notability, I agree with Spinixster's assessment of characters having an impact outside the show. Conyo14 ( talk) 22:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List_of_CSI:_NY_characters. Not seeing enough to keep this per WP:GNG, just ap lot summary WP:FANCRUFT, but redirects are WP:CHEAP, so why not WP:SOFTDELETE? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for redirection which is what happens in a lot of AFDs about fictional characters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 13 July 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! 02:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Afghan Army (1978-1992)

Afghan Army (1978-1992) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is an unreliable WP:CFORK of Afghan Army. The only new data in the article, the equipment list sourced from Никитенко Е. Г. Афганистан: От войны 80-х до прогноза новых войн. — М.: Астрель : ACT, 2004, has been amended in the process of transcription to increase equipment numbers falsely: 768 to 1568 tanks, 2900 artillery pieces to more than 4,000, etc. There is nothing here which should not be easily merged with Afghan Army before deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Buckshot06 (talk) 02:15, 13 July 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ivan Katchanovski

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

The article is a WP:COATRACK for a WP:FRINGE theory of EuroMaidan that has been promoted mainly by Russian state media. Katchanovksi himself is notable neither as an academic, nor as a writer. What content is notable about the theory itself should be rolled into Revolution of Dignity. Nangaf ( talk) 15:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: I’m on the fence. He is also a real academic, and coauthor of the respectable Historical Dictionary of Ukraine. But I cannot confirm that he meets any of the criteria at WP:PROF. Google Scholar shows a small number of works with a lot of citations, [27] but are there enough in peer-reviewed pubs to support notability?  — Michael  Z. 13:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Admittedly, the only case for notability from the article itself is his Maidan false-flag theory, and IMO that is kind of like WP:1E, which can appear in articles where it belongs and doesn’t warrant an author’s bio. I see he is currently linked in Euromaidan (EDIT: deleted) [28] but not mentioned nor cited there nor in Revolution of Dignity, nor Maidan casualties. I’m voting delete.  — Michael  Z. 13:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep on the grounds that WP:NAUTHOR item #2 as long as the page is expanded and includes more information other than this one theory. If it can't be done, I would merge it into an existing article. - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs) 14:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Even if you consider Katchanovski a “creative professional” (when he held a seminar at his university and brought a paper to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association) and the thesis “a significant new theory,” it was originated by fringe websites (like Global Research.ca) and Russian state media (like RT (TV network)) in February–March 2014, not by Katchanovski in October.  — Michael  Z. 15:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Incidentally, the more appropriate guidelines for this line of thought are WP:PROF, criteria no. 1, 4, or 7, and I don’t think they are met.  — Michael  Z. 16:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't understand. Which "significant new concept, theory, or technique" did he pioneer? The Maidan sniper "theory"? I think the criteria uses "theory" in a different way from, say, "conspiracy theory"; it means some significant new theory in some scholarly field, for example. He definitely doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. But odd to judge him there given he is not a journalist and his books are academic. More apt guideline to check would be WP:PROF. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
To clarify my nomination: going by the details of his biography, the only possible criterion of WP:PROF that Katchanovski might meet is 7 ('The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity') and that impact is essentially solely for the false flag theory of Maidan. Unless there are other grounds for notability -- and I do not consider that his written works qualify him as a notable WP:AUTHOR -- it would be better to include this this theory in the appropriate article on Maidan rather than a biographic article. Nangaf ( talk) 19:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Not notable per WP:NACADEMIC. As the proposer notes, the article is a mess, mainly about a conspiracy theory. Adoring nanny ( talk) 13:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Another user is suggesting we keep per WP:NAUTHOR item 2, which says says 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. (emphasis added). Katchanovski fails this because the conspiracy theory is not significant. It's also unclear to me if he originated it. Adoring nanny ( talk) 15:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep, I think it respects WP:SCHOLAR as it is widely cited in academic studies:

Quoted in Google Scholar 1557 times, with h-index 21 and i10-index 36. [29]
"The separatist war in Donbas: a violent break-up of Ukraine?" Cited 148 times.
"The paradox of American unionism: Why Americans like unions more than Canadians do, but join much less" Cited 132 times.
"Regional political divisions in Ukraine in 1991–2006" Cited 95 times.
"The future of private sector unions in the US" Cited 88 times.
"Divergence in growth in post-communist countries" Cited 81 times.
"Cleft Countries. Regional Political Divisions and Cultures in Post-Soviet Ukraine and Moldova. With a Foreword by Francis Fukuyama" Cited 77 times.
Widely quoted in Google Books. [30]
Widely quoted in Google News. [31]
I would also urge colleagues to use the term 'conspiracy theorist' with care (per WP:BLP) because this academic is not widely referred to in these terms in the sources.-- Mhorg ( talk) 19:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
So what? Are you saying people with those numbers all automatically meet some particular notability threshold? I don’t know what those numbers mean.
I don’t know how many citations or whether those citations are “independent reliable sources” or indicate “a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources,” or “a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity” (WP:PROF).  — Michael  Z. 20:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Heh, “widely quoted” in the news, with results topped by The Grayzone, editorials under his byline, an interview by the Tehran Times, and some lefty websites obsessed with “Ukrainian Nazis.”  — Michael  Z. 21:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
He is a well-known scholar. For example, some important Western sources quoted him:
Mhorg ( talk) 22:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
These alone qualify him under NPROF #7 BhamBoi ( talk) 07:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
One of these is an op ed by him. None of them are about him. One of them (La Razon) quotes him extensively; the others are a single quote. This does not demonstrate "substantial impact". BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Please see my note above. While it is possible that the false flag theory of Maidan might qualify as 'substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity' based on media coverage, since Katchanovski's notability does not extend to any other topic, it would be preferable to include what is notable about the theory in the appropriate article about Maidan and delete the biographical article, since he is WP:1E and the article a WP:COATRACK. Nangaf ( talk) 20:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • It is difficult to say what exactly was his "substantial impact" (in academia and outside). Is he an author of the Maidan "false flag theory"? Hardly. That has been debated and investigated by others. See this NYT investigation, for example, that does not mentioned Katchanovsky [51]. We can only say his claims on Twitter and elsewhere were briefly mentioned a number of times. They were usually trivial comments on current events. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep of course, scholar academic with number of peer reviewed articles and publications, well-recognised, no reason to delete the page, other than personal dislike of his theories. Marcelus ( talk) 11:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Marcelus: Can you elaborate why you think IK is a notable WP:ACADEMIC? As far as I can tell he does not meet the appropriate criteria. Nangaf ( talk) 08:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
He is influential and notable academic, author of several books and articles in scientific journals. Marcelus ( talk) 12:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Generating dismisinformation [52] can add him some notability notoriety, but it does not help him as WP:ACADEMIC. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Please be careful about using 'Generating disinformation' per WP:BLP. The source you brought in does not use such terms when talking about this person. Mhorg ( talk) 18:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Well, that particular publication does describe the "theory" as refuted misinformation and cites him as the source of the "theory". Quickly checking, one can find this opinion by Taras Kuzio who says about two papers by K. which, according to him, "have generated controversy because they are revisionist and have little in common with academic scholarship." My very best wishes ( talk) 20:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Katchanovski's academic output is meagre and not by itself sufficient under WP:NPROF. What evidence is there of any influence on his field? Nangaf ( talk) 20:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. First of all, he hardly passes WP:GNG because most cited sources only mention him or his work in passing, there is no more substantial coverage. These are really just citations of his claims. Yes, his claims are highly controversial and as such were cited in various contexts. Which boils down to the only significant argument to "keep" this page: he has a presumably high citation H index. But is it high enough to establish notability? I am not convinced. Looking at the guideline, Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), it says: Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used.. Still, the current version of the page is sourced. A promotion? Yes, maybe. The involvement of someone "with close connection to the subject", the prolonged discussions, waste of time and claims about this page becoming an "attack page" [53] tips the balance toward "delete", in my opinion. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    It would be first deletion of the page, that I'm aware of, because it is "unconvinient". For real, the only thing that should be our focus is the notability, and Katchanovski as an established academic clearly is notable enough. Marcelus ( talk) 15:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:COI editing, for example someone creating an article about himself or a friend/collaborator, can be an argument for deletion. Someone with a potential COI who also creates a disruption (such as the IP involved at the article talk page I think) can only make it worse. Hence my comment. Just to be clear, I am talking about a potential COI only by IP accounts (such as [54]), not by anyone else. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Ok, but what it all has to do with this article? And especially this discussion? Marcelus ( talk) 17:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD fell through the cracks somehow. Leaning towards no consensus, but hesitant to close as such without relisting at least once.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep Passes as an academic, based on the number of citations. Could be considered controversial, but it is what it is. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Citations alone are not sufficient to determine academic notability. Nangaf ( talk) 04:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
What then would be satisfying? Marcelus ( talk) 21:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
There are 8 conditions listed under WP:NACADEMIC. Number of citations, per se, is not among them. Typically it means professors or academics of a similar rank. Katchanovski is a junior academic who does not even have a full-time appointment at his institution. Nangaf ( talk) 23:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:17, 13 July 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 Victory (church)#Victory Worship. This is a compromise solution that could very well be challenged. But I don't think relisting will help as there has already been good participation in this deletion discussion and the sides are well-articulated. The redirect target actually has more content than the article did. I think this is the best resolution in a discussion between those seeking to Delete the article and those who believe the article should be Kept. For those editors who are insistent that any page created by a sockpuppet should be deleted, you can take your argument to WP:RFD. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Victory Worship

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

I draftified it and it was recreated, and it's still a non-notable band. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply

That is a general policy comment rather than a vote on the notability of Victory Worship. I disagree with the proposed process as well. A messy article on something notable can be addressed with edit tags and it doesn't take too long to remove blatantly promotional prose. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply
That link isn't a "note", it's a link to a category of blocked suspected sockpuppets. It's not clear what the point of including it here is. If you suspect an editor of being a sockpuppet, SPI is thataway. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The creator of the article is a sock and the sock master is banned so it can be speedily deleted under G5. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Seriously? Only 7,500 units need sold to qualify for a Gold Record per Philippines industry criteria? It's time there is a hard look at wikipedia's music notability criteria using a gold record as a blanket qualification for notability. US/British criteria is 500,000 units. To put 7,500 on a level par with that is ridiculous. I won't weigh in on a keep or delete, but am disappointed in editors who automatically vote keep base on the gold record criteria without considering it with a critical mind. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 21:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Indeed, and as the population of the Philippines is higher than the UK population, that disparity is even more remarkable. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 22:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Philippines is a poor country, and music piracy is very rampant. Most musicians make money by touring (I suppose the same is true for almost all countries, but more so in the Philippines). Howard the Duck ( talk) 23:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - if not G5 speedy delete. This is not ready for mainspace. The certified gold is a bit of nonsense. Per WP:NMUSIC, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. The operative word is may. There is no indication of notability beyond the sale of 7,500 units. This is not presumed notability. I would suggest draftify, but as the page creator is a banned sock, that would just be backdoor deletion I think. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 22:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep The sales number seems low, but it hit a Gold record in the Philippines, seems to be notable as explained above. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Perhaps we should merge or just redirect to Victory (church) which already has an arguably better section about the band. — siro χ o 08:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I think all content on this page is already on that one, so there is nothing to merge. I agree that redirect is sensible. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 10:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    However, when we start to get into the pattern of doing anything other than deleting for articles created by puppets, it encourages them to do sock puppet, because they can count on the G5 CSD eligible getting re-direct if it fails a full "keep". To discourage promotional and PR activity, delete should be connsidered... Graywalls ( talk) 20:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    On the other hand, a redirect makes it somewhat less likely that the article is created again, and also makes it easier for any editor to revert if it is. — siro χ o 21:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    There's always delete and salt. Graywalls ( talk) 21:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    You're absolutely right, but personally, I prefer such options only when the problem is persistent, as it's less in the spirit of WP:5P3. I would hope this issue would end here, and if in a year or two a new editor comes along and are able to write a good article that meets GNG, they can. — siro χ o 21:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:G5 and redirect to Victory (church)#Victory Worship per siroxo. Page was created by indef-blocked suspected sockpuppet, and has no substantial edits by any other user, so G5 is appropriate (but since we're already here, no particular reason to speedy it IMO). On the general notability question, I don't think we need to take NMUSIC quite so rigidly as has been suggested above. Guidelines are meant to have reasonable exceptions, and the Philippine standard for gold records seems like such an exception. At the moment the church article actually does a better job of covering the band than the band article, so we will better serve our readers by consolidating coverage there until there is enough verified information to support a split. -- Visviva ( talk) 23:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:NMUSIC per above arguments, especially that it had a Gold record. SBKSPP ( talk) 03:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or, better yet, redirect. I previously wrote I wouldn't vote, but I will now mostly because the previous comment cites "above arguments," but apparently did not read them, as it was previously pointed out that a gold record in the Philippines is only 7,500 units! The gold record seems to be the majority reasoning for the keep votes as if that is unimpeachable criteria, but the guidelines specify only that it may indicate notability. Meeting the Philippine's ridiculously low threshold for a gold record is not enough, and the routine/half-promotional press coverage for this musical project all fall under the umbrella of this Mega-church's oversight and notability. Like a few other editors, I'm also troubled by the sock puppetry in it's creation. Redirect to that church's page is fine. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 13:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Victory (church)#Victory Worship per Siroxo and Visviva. - Ian Lopez @ 06:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Yes, I would go along with that. — Maile ( talk) 00:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC
RecycledPixels makes a valid point below. Deletion is fine. But I'm not sure how a redirect would work, if you just deleted the article. But nevertheless, you would need to create the Worship part in your own words, without using a redirect pointing to a creation by a banned editor. — Maile ( talk) 04:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I wasn't asked, perhaps because I'm a KEEP above, but if you want to G5 the article because it was created by a banned editor, I won't object, although it seems like pointless theater to me, but it should be clear that there would be no problem with another editor rewriting the article from scratch. The subject matter of the article, despite the article's horrible current state, meets WP:NMUSIC, and so I still oppose any AFD deletion that would result in editors saying in the future, "you can't make an article about this, it was already brought to AFD and deleted." RecycledPixels ( talk) 21:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Article has been rewritten from scratch. No need to G5. RecycledPixels ( talk) 19:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    So G5 still applies because the page creator remains the banned sock. Other deletions reasons also still pertain. The only evidence of notability here is that they shifted 7,500 units. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 20:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
G5 doesn't apply if there have been major edits by non sock editors which an admin would determine, Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Major edit does not really describe this. It has gained a sentence and lost the 4 band members. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (G5) as created by a banned user with no substantial edits by others. Also want to object to the idea that being certified gold = notability. As NMUSIC says, meeting such a criteria means it may be notable. In this case, it just means the unit sold 20,000 units. Folks in the US may be used to gold meaning half a million in sales, which are the sort of numbers likely to attract press attention. 20,000 maybe a lot for a smaller country, but doesn't necessarily translate to the kind of sourcing we're looking for. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Responding to this here because the issue has been raised multiple times, not singling you out. I think the guideline in NMUSIC is sound. It's not a policy, it's not a black-and-white line in the sand, it's a suggestion based on a long history of debates over WP's history that if an album reaches a country's gold sales mark, there's a damn good chance that there are multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject that are going to cover that. Can a failed English Google Search about a group in a country where a vast majority of the population does not speak English prove that it's not notable? I say no. And I can't be bothered to do online and hard copy searches in the 20+ languages that are spoken in the Philippines to determine whether or not it's notable. The guideline exists to save us from long, pointless debates about whether such a source exists. Just accept the presumption. Does that mean that some high school garage band will have a Wikipedia article? Of course not. They still have to meet the country's sales guidelines. And according to the nation's certifying agency, only 16 albums in the country met the gold sales mark that year, [56] so arguments that the standards are too lax fail. How many albums met gold sales standards in the United States? Hint: the RIAA article for the year is 48 pages long. [57] (including singles) So this article should be a KEEP based only on that presumption of notability outlined in the NMUSIC guideline. The G5 issue is a total strawman argument. I have taken the one short sentence of prose that the banned sockpuppeter wrote, deleted it, and turned it into three completely unrelated short sentences of prose. I also nuked the list of band members because it was unsourced. There is no prose that closely resembles what the sockpuppeter wrote. This should be closed as keep. RecycledPixels ( talk) 04:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    if an album reaches a country's gold sales mark, there's a damn good chance that there are multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject that are going to cover that - In this case we don't have any such sources after nearly 3 weeks at AfD. It seems clear at this point that they are not coming, which reaffirms the 7,500 threshhold is way too low. You anticipate that objection with: Can a failed English Google Search about a group in a country where a vast majority of the population does not speak English prove that it's not notable? but the vast majority of the population of the Philippines do speak excellent English. English is one of two official languages of the Philippines and 92% of the population speak it. There really should be English language sources for an English titled group singing primarily in English, from a Church that holds services in English in a country that is well noted for its high levels of proficiency in English. Also, as noted above, the Philippines has a larger population than the UK, and yet the UK definition for gold is 400,000 units. 7,500 is ridiculously low. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    You could be right about the language. I based my statement only on the fact that the infobox of Wikipedia's article on the Filipino language suggests that there are 28,000,000 native speakers of Filipino, whereas Philippine English's infobox suggests that there are 200,000 native speakers of that language in the country. According to that article, there are 52 million people in the country who speak it as a second language, vs. 82 million total speakers of Filipino, of a total population of 109 million according to Philippines, but I'm sure you're right about the 92%; one of those articles is probably wrong. And in case you were wondering, the UK's certifying agency, BPI, certified 132 gold albums in 2015. I'd post a link, but the website is garbage, but you can get to it from [58] and enter the appropriate filters. Compare with PARI's 16 albums in 2015. RecycledPixels ( talk) 09:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I re-read my earlier statement and I instead of saying "where a vast majority of the population does not speak English..." I should have phrased it as "where a vast majority of the population does not use English as a native language..." I apologize for the mis-statement. RecycledPixels ( talk) 09:45, 18 July 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 List of CSI: NY characters. Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Jo Danville

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

3/5 sources used in this article are blogs, a quick Google search doesn't give enough sources to prove that the character is notable enough to have a separate page. I suggest a merge and redirect to List of CSI: NY characters. Spinixster (chat!) 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. While !votes were pretty evenly split, no real rebuttal was provided to the final source analyses provided by editors advocating deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

TNT Fireworks

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

not notable according to no reliable sources and WP:NCORP. Facebook source should be deleted. Tls9-me ( talk) 08:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 03:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://corporateofficeheadquarters.org/tnt-fireworks-inc/ ? Blog source (ironically uses Wikipedia for info) No No ✘ No
https://www.tntfireworks.com/ No Own website ? ~ ✘ No
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nonprofits-forge-successful-partnerships-with-consumer-fireworks-leader-259988801.html No Source says "NEWS PROVIDED BY TNT Fireworks" at the top of the article" ? Yes ✘ No
https://www.coinbooks.org/resources/anb2021.pdf Yes Yes No Directory of companies ✘ No
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04800387 Yes Yes ? Government listing of the company ? Unknown
https://tucson.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/county-is-sued-over-its-ban-on-fireworks/article_c33b7882-4920-5b79-b340-59edcc58f1be.html Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.al.com/business/2017/06/tnt_fireworks_recalled_for_une.html Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.wtvy.com/content/news/36000-units-of-TNT-Fireworks-being-recalled--431754923.html Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.westernslopenow.com/news/local-news/tnt-fireworks-safe-and-responsible-use-campaign/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/conditions-right-for-exciting-bassmaster-classic-on-the-tennessee-river-301775154.html Yes ? No Brief name mention ✘ No
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110614007221/en/Buckhorn%C2%AE-Assists-with-Tornado-Disaster-Relief-Efforts Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
— siro χ o 02:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I agree and pretty obviously too. For example this in tucson.com about the county getting sued over its bad on fireworks has two mentions-in-passing of the company. It has zero in-depth information about the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. One of these days I'm gonna do a source table for GNG/NCORP so that we can explicitly evaluate CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. HighKing ++ 21:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Very well prepared and presented source analysis table, which gives a clear indication that that article is non-notable. I can't see any definition in the references that would indicate it was notable. Woeful sources really Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep Talk 11:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If someone here wants to take stewardship of it to avoid backdoor deletion, I think there's a promising case for draftifying here. This is an old company and there will very likely be analog sources. We just can't really guarantee NPOV without any at all. — siro χ o 11:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Can you present WP:THREE or even 2 that meet WP:SIRS? — siro χ o 20:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Raw search url results are non-rs as you can't identify what article is being talked about, so that is non-statement. If you have sources that satisfy WP:THREE then present so we can examine them. As at the moment, there is not coverage that satisfies WP:SIRS and WP:NCORP. Post something that is valid instead on non-statements. scope_creep Talk 15:39, 19 July 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 14:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Modern City Montessori Intermediate College

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

Created by single purpose editor. Only a wikimap source provided. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 01:21, 6 July 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 01:38, 13 July 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! 01:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ashish Khandal

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

Low quality sources, subject doesn't seem to meet the notability guideline. Probably also undisclosed paid editing, see page log on simplewiki as well. — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs) 01:03, 13 July 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! 00:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Dinesh Sabnis

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

Looks very promotional and not notable. The coverage is all promotional in low-quality sources, and notability is not inherited from membership in organizations. — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs) 00:56, 13 July 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. based on new sources found (which I hope find their way into the article). Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

John Hackett (musician)

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

Subject isn't particularly notable and the only sources I can find with any sort of relation to him are about his brother. 4 sources do come up relating to his band but all of them are from the same website, which I don't believe counts as significant coverage. Article only uses three sources, and only one seems barely notable. Dawnbails ( talk) 00:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. MacKenzie, Gary (2017-10-12). "John Hackett". Prog. Retrieved 2023-07-09 – via PressReader.

      The review notes: "But tonight they are showcasing John Hackett, with his prolific five-decade long career encompassing classical and full-on rock. ... Easing in gently, Hackett kicks off a varied night by playing a short duo set with collaborator Nick Fletcher on classical guitar. With Hackett playing a strange looking instrument – “It’s a vertical flute, not a plumbing tool!” – they open with the spritely yet gentle Entr’acte, by French composer Ibert, and Hackett’s own Freefall, a pastoral musical sketch evocative of wide open skies."

    2. Reijman, Alison (2022-03-13). "John Hackett in conversation". Prog. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The article notes: "With a musical career spanning almost 50 years, John Hackett is one of prog’s ‘go to’ flute players, appearing on albums by musicians such as Anthony Phillips, Nick Magnus and most recently, Ms Amy Birks. He’s collaborated on and recorded several classical albums as a solo artist, in duets or bands, including Symbiosis, and these days he records and tours with his own eponymous band, but it’s his contributions to elder brother Steve’s albums for which he’s best known."

    3. Barnes, Mike; Kendall, Jo (2023-04-14). "John Hackett Band". Prog. Retrieved 2023-07-09 – via PressReader.

      The review notes: "The scope of the music is progeclectic. Songs such as The Spyglass are melodic, multi-harmonied and Yes-like – with a creepy Big Brother vocal – others such as Theme And Rondo have, naturally for flautist/keyboard player Hackett, a classical influence. Burnt Down Trees has blues and jazz-rock at the centre and Hackett’s mellifluous playing on the Latin-influenced, bouncy instrumental Queenie And Elmo’s Perfect Day – and the Focus-tastic romp Red Hair – is balanced nicely against Fletcher’s rip-roaring prog-jazz guitar work (possibly the band’s secret weapon here)."

    4. Marsh, Steve (May 2009). "Reviews ... : CDs - John Hackett: "Prelude to Summer"". Classical Guitar. Vol. 27, no. 9. p. 43. ISSN  0950-429X. ProQuest  1433306.

      The abstract notes: " A recording of guitar duets and flute/guitar duets featuring flutist, guitarist, and composer John Hackett is reviewed (Hacktrax)."

    5. Jones, Petra (November 2006). "From Minor to Major: An Interview with John Hackett". Flute Talk. Vol. 26, no. 3. pp. 6–8, 27. ISSN  0744-6918. ProQuest  1388830.

      The abstract notes: " Flutist and composer John Hackett is profiled. Growing up in London, he began his musical career as a guitarist like his brother, who became the lead guitarist for the rock band Genesis. Seeing Ian McDonald of King Crimson inspired Hackett to try the flute. He attended Sheffield Univesity, specializing in flute performance and studying composition. After leaving school, he toured with Genesis for a few years. A 1993 neck injury left him unable to play for a year and forced him to switch to a curved headjoint on his flute. Changing his style of playing to the new type of flute was a challenge."

    6. May, Philippa (2018-09-25). "Feast of prog rock in Ewyas Harold with the John Hackett Band". Hereford Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The article notes: "The John Hackett Band come to Ewyas Harold Memorial Hall for a night of prog rock on Saturday, September 29. Progressive rock flute player, guitarist, keyboard player and singer John is best known for his work with his brother Steve Hackett, the former Genesis guitarist. Since 1975 he has recorded and toured with Steve in Europe, USA and Japan alongside a career as a solo flautist and session player. The band is full of exceptional players who weave beautiful themes from atmospheric soundscapes to funk and rock."

    7. Bryan, Kevin (2018-01-16). "CD reviews : Blue Rose Code, John Hackett Band, Dreamboats & Petticoats, Sandro Ivo Bartoli". Messenger Newspapers. Newsquest. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The review notes: "John Hackett Band,"We Are Not Alone" (Esoteric / Cherry Red)- The multi-talented Mr.Hackett is probably best known for his flute wielding exploits with brother Steve during the late seventies and early eighties but he's now firmly established as a band leader in his own right, and "We Are Not Alone" serves up a veritable feast of free flowing prog rock for your listening pleasure. The 2 CD set is divided equally between live and studio recordings, with classical guitarist Nick Fletcher's contributions also deserving a mention in dispatches as Hackett and his gifted cohorts unveil freshly minted gems such as "Take Control," "Never Gonna Make A Dime" and the instrumental "Blue Skies of Marazion.""

    8. Bryan, Kevin (2020-12-17). "Music reviews". Messenger Newspapers. Newsquest. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The review notes: "John Hackett,"The Piper Plays His Tune" (Hacktrax)- This beguiling home produced offering provides an eloquent vehicle for the consumate artistry of the multi-talented John Hackett, whose instantly identifiable flute sound has graced many of his elder brother Steve's critically acclaimed prog-rock projects since the mid seventies. "The Piper Plays His Tune" captures John at his most melodic and accessible as he indulges his lifelong passion for the delights of good old fashioned pop music via skilfully executed solo ditties such as "Broken Glass," Julia" and the reflective "Too Late For Dreamers.""

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

    Cunard ( talk) 10:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I personally wouldn't consider this significant coverage; the first three sources you've provided come from the same magazine, the two ProQuest ones don't appear to be reliable, source #6 is of a local newspaper, and the two last sources provided come from the same newspaper and again appear to be local. I don't really see merit in these being "reliable sources" nor do I see it to be significant coverage enough for this person to require an article. Dawnbails ( talk) 17:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
From this book, "Flute Talk magazine is an informative resource and a fun read for flutists of all ages and playing levels. It includes interviews with accomplished flutists, features on various performance styles, a column on piccolo playing, performance guides for flute repertoire, masterclass and event listings, and much more. Check out the Web site for more information: www.flutetalkmagazine.com." This book verifies that Kathleen Goll-Wilson served as editor of Flute Talk. I consider Flute Talk to be a reliable source about music-related topics.

This book verifies that since 1982, Colin Cooper has been features editor of Classical Guitar. I consider Classical Guitar to be a reliable source about music-related topics.

Wikipedia:Notability (people) does not exclude local sources from establishing notability. If editors would like to exclude local sources from establishing notability, they need to achieve consensus to change the guideline.

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." It is clear that after combining the biographical coverage in all these independent sources, there is enough coverage to establish notability.

Cunard ( talk) 01:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review newly located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

MY Titanic

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

Not notable; I can't even find a picture of this ship. Ironmatic1 ( talk) 00:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as large number of sources cited shows notability.
Godtres ( talk) 14:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Very Strong Keep There are thousands of ship articles without pictures. Just because someone hasn't released a photograph under a Wikipedia compatible licence does not mean that the ship is not notable. This has to be the worst reason to nominate an article for deletion ever. Mjroots ( talk) 03:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - not being able to find a photo of the ship is not a reason to nominate it for deletion. Next time, go to the articles talk page and place the {{photo requested}} tag at the top of the page, directly beneath any WikiProject tags. As for the notability, this article seems to check out and it is sourced strongly and accordingly.
4theloveofallthings ( talk) 4theloveofallthings ( talk) 00:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_July_13&oldid=1166488267"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 12 July 14 >

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 no consensus‎ and none likely to emerge with it literally in the news Star Mississippi 02:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 Wimbledon school incident

2023 Wimbledon school incident (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A car crash without special intentions or an extreme number of casualties? No reason to believe that this would ever pass WP:NOTNEWS and will get WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Fram ( talk) 14:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep per @ Wjfox2005. 90.255.6.219 ( talk) 19:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Neutral, but leaning towards include. This clearly isn't a "normal" car crash. It's currently the main headline on all major UK news outlets. A girl of eight has died, and 16 other persons are now known to be injured, many critically. So the casualty figure does seem notable, and I wouldn't be so quick to delete this article. It could certainly do with more info, though (currently only two lines of text). Wjfox2005 ( talk) 15:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete A very common type of accident whose only claim to N is that it was near a big event where reporters could report on it very quickly, and is very likely an accident rather than a purposeful occurrence where the driver intended to hurt anyone. Nate • ( chatter) 01:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This event was not part of something larger ("The incident was not being treated as terrorism-related" [1]). It sounds like she lost control of her car and crashed, nothing out of WP:MILL coverage. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This sounds like it was a tragic accident, but there's nothing that makes it notable in an encyclopedic sense. This is Paul ( talk) 09:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - since this just occurred, virtually all sources are going to be primary. Lacking any notable person being involved; or as previously mentioned, no large death toll or nefarious intent, there's no reason to think this will ever be anything but NOTNEWS content. At best, this is TOOSOON, but to be totally honest, I don't see this ever being notable. 4.37.252.50 ( talk) 15:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it's a car crash, like the thousands of others that happen every day. There is no way that this will get sustained coverage later on, and absent that, it's not notable. AryKun ( talk) 07:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 08:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Wimbledon, London#History. Firstly, I think the contributions of previous editors have made clear – to the point of WP:SNOWBALL – that this article should not survive the AfD. I quote WP:EVENTCRITERIA: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths..."shock" news... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Nevertheless, dissenting editors have rightly pointed out that this is a significant incident that has dominated headlines in the UK and received widespread national coverage, though such coverage is unlikely to be sustained. So a mention in the local area's history section may be appropriate, and will likely take no more than two or three sentences. (The primary school itself probably doesn't meet notability coverage.) The nominated article can always be recreated if 'something further' does offer 'additional enduring significance', but this would need to be more than a higher death toll – for example, say, an official enquiry that makes significant policy recommendations. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 11:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Why would we merge this current-day thing to an article summarizing a thousand-year old community? This is not going to retain any more significant coverage past this week outside pundits for the Daily Mail and the junk news channels and maybe a couple days when the driver pleads and is sentenced. It's sad and it's happened, but we are not, and should not, be a database of every single accident. Nate • ( chatter) 21:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Reply By 'merge', I only intend that we might append two or, at a stretch, three sentences to the section, which also mention the event's significant coverage in national newspapers. Two issues may understandably make this alternative to deletion seem out of place:
1. The Wimbledon, London#History section could be expanded with recent history (it currently ends in the 1970s and 1980s).
2. The Wimbledon, London article effectively incorporates two communities centred on different high streets which may well justify separate articles: the "old" village and the "new" town down the hill. The site of this incident is on the edge of the former settlement. (Rather tellingly, the lead section includes neighbouring wards in Wimbledon's population count, up to two of which have separate entries: Raynes Park and Wimbledon Park – though the article focuses on the park, the short description refers to the settlement.) In an article on the village, which is a much smaller settlement, a mention of this incident might seem more apposite – in light of the significant coverage.
Asking as charitably as possible how this incident might merit inclusion in the encyclopaedia even if it is short of a separate article, one consideration might be that yes, this event is WP:MILL to the extent that fatalities from cars occur daily, but it has also generated significant coverage and featured on the front pages of many national newspapers, which is not WP:MILL. Wikipedia does not work on precedent, but I cannot help but think that the Wallasey pub shooting, also in headlines in recent days, could equally be described as WP:MILL if it were not for the headlines it generated. From WP:NCRIME: As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 02:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I think its a bit of a stretch to compare this event to explosions which killed 5+ people. Again, there was no larger motive here based on the investigation being conducted. What level of detail would you focus on? There is the car, the person driving the car, the victims, and the reactions. Lets start with the car... if the model or make of the car was found to be at fault then yes that would be a WP:LASTING effect. I can't think about much regarding the person driving the car as they aren't being linked to terrorism. As for the victims, are they notable? If one of them gets an article then this article could be redirected there. Finally, reactions are routine... unless you have the King or Prime Minister directly making a statement (not through someone else) I don't see how its notable. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: From WP:LASTING: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. This isn't a necessary condition for notability, just as WP:SCOPE – in this case, coverage by national newspapers – is not a sufficient condition: Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 20:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Whispyhistory: With all due respect, that would present a bit of bias. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge This article was probably created too soon, but this AfD was also initiated too soon. This event is currently falling somewhere between run-of-the-mill (those incidents don't get breaking news push notifications for updates, nor comments from national political leaders) and clearly notable. This indicates there should be coverage somewhere, but not necessarily as a stand-alone article. If the school was notable, then there would be no question that this should be merged to that article rather than deleted, but the school not being notable does not change the notability of the event. As noted above, the Wimbledon, London article (either as is or after a split) would make a suitable target. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Wimbledon, London#History, but in brief. I would not object to the deletion either. It should be remembered that the tragedy of the story or the number of victims is not fundamental in this case, what is fundamental is the notability as understood by the rules. The notability of much larger incidents is often called into question here. Deckkohl ( talk) 14:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I feel this AfD was created a bit too soon. The nominator on 6 July expressed the view that the article was unlikely to get WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Sadly the second death of an 8-year-old girl on 9 July led to further significant national news coverage and the fact that a woman in her forties is reported to be critically ill in hospital, with over a dozen further casualties means it may continue to get sustained coverage. I agree with Wjfox2005 that the incident was not a "normal" car crash. For the Land Rover to crash into a school, kill two children and for there to have been many other casualties taken to hospital makes this a notable and unusual event. There were public reactions expressed from a number of senior British politicians, which doesn't tend to happen for a "normal" car crash. Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 23:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The bulk of editors are arguing for Deletion but the most recent participants are advocating Keep or Merge. Would a selective Merge preserve content that Keep supporters is important? Would this outcome and turning this page into a redirect to the town be okay with those seeking Deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - This article is about a car accident with two fatalities. No one involved was notable. It's certainly not the first time a car has crashed into a school, nor will it be the last. It is a totally insignificant event to all but the friends and family of those involved. There's absolutely no reason to merge any information about a COMMONPLACE auto accident into an article on a thousand year old city. Notability is designed to ensure that sufficient SECONDARY sources to verify the accuracy of the article. At this point, all sources are news accounts and I suppose that many editors do not realize that news accounts are PRIMARY. I frankly doubt they'll ever be any secondary sources. What reason would there ever be to do a secondary analysis of a relatively minor traffic accident. WP:RECENT, WP:LOCAL and WP:COMMONPLACE all apply. 4.37.252.50 ( talk) 03:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. We're chasing a moving target if we try to evaluate the sources now. (We're here discussing whether to delete an article, not whether to create one; it's a bit odd to cite WP:DELAY while ignoring the immediately following section.) Beyond that, I do not believe that the above citation to WP:PRIMARY is correct. I can find nothing there to support the claim that news accounts are PRIMARY -- and I would be surprised if I could, since that statement seems categorically false. Plenty of the available sources here meet the WP:SECONDARY requirement of contain[ing] analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. But any detailed analysis of sources (and thus of notability) is pointless at this juncture, which is why we have RAPID in the first place. (I don't think it's foregone conclusion that this is a transient event with no broader implications -- it will be interesting, for example, to see if Norman Baker's call for SUV restrictions based on this incident gets any non-tabloid uptake.) -- Visviva ( talk) 18:17, 14 July 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. If better source material becomes available in the future and someone is interested in having this draftified, please let me know. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Audel Laville

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found one good piece of coverage here, which I added, but unfortunately this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Other sources like this and this are not independent. It might be a good idea to Draftify. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See if there is more support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru ( talk) 09:06, 21 July 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. Very little input, but ultimately the one "keep" opinion does not provide any sources that establish notability. Sandstein 13:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Reclaiming the Glory

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Looks questionable. UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 13 July 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 01:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Reverb Records

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

Record labels are business, not a band, so they're expected to meet WP:NCORP. Verifiability of existence do not clear the hurdle of notability. This is non-notable, because it lacks significant, intellectually independent coverage in multiple reliable sources, of which at least one must be broadly circulated media. Graywalls ( talk) 19:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, WP:NCORP, WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED. In terms of NCORP and GNG, and following my own WP:BEFORE, I have added all the sources I could find. All are trivial passing mentions in national newspapers (one single passing mention in The Times (UK)), fleeting mentions in regional newspapers (INM regionals for Sligo and Drogheda) and a word or two in music mags (like Hot Press). As the org is based in Portland, Oregon, I also looked in The Oregonian, finding only this single source. In each case the subject is mentioned, in passing, in articles which are substantively about something else. I can find no in depth coverage to support the text - not to mind supporting a claim to notability. In terms of NOTINHERITED, a small (<10 employee?) independent label doesn't inherit notability from its customers/partners/whatever. No more than any other org/business/subject would. The COI/SPA overtones also do not help. Mine is a "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez ( talk) 14:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 13 July 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Village Enterprise

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

Article about an organization that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH. Written in a promotional tone though it has been previously trimmed. Also sources are mostly passingmentions. Jamiebuba ( talk) 22:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Move to draft: Agree with WeirdNAnnoyed, I have done significant cleanup to the article, but it will need complete resourcing given none of the sources are in an accepted encyclopedic format. Furthermore, the sections are non-standard and the remaining sections will need to be rewritten from scratch. There is likely enough source material and citations for an article; however, given the article's condition it should not be in main space right now, rather in draft space. Editchecker123 ( talk) 03:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the article trimming, would the nominator be okay with draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Well, I try not to see these discussions as an eternal battle between "Keep" and "Delete" but is this content substantial and of any use to the project, now or in the future. I'm sure that POV is not codified in policy anywhere but, for me, it helps me understand when articles are really crap and need to go and when, in another case, time in Draft space might eventually lead to something worthwhile for our readers. But thanks for the support. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Artlist

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

The coverage is either routine, such as funding news, etc., or it is in unreliable sources. As such, it clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. US-Verified ( talk) 20:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • KEEP - has plenty of sources, many more available. Way more coverage available than a "trivial mention" as in WP:CORPDEPTH. Company is still a healthy active corporation and is generating new products in the media field. Checking the stats, the page gets 150 views a day so, it is certainly notable. Could use an update and some exposition on the products but the page is protected and with all the issues, I am sure it would get flagged as advertorial.
Blarneyfife7 ( talk) 21:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: most of the sources are repeated multiple times, and many of the sources do not include authors which makes it difficult to establish independence for WP:Reliable sources
Editchecker123 ( talk) 03:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
KEEP - The sources here are OK, others could be added including https://fxhome.com/news/artlist-acquires-fxhome but there are no end of online sources. There are currently sources that meet criteria of WP:SIRS but this could be improved further. Artlist is a highly regarded company in the creative space, with millions of users and growing products, so the need for representation on Wikipedia will only increase over time. KirstieT ( talk) 08:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC) — KirstieT ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Can you please link 2 or preferably 3 sources that meet WP:SIRS. I believe I looked at all 30 in the article and couldn't find a single one, but I may have missed them. I've no criticism or doubt of the company itself. However, especially with companies, without such sources it's hard to uphold pillars 1 and 2 — siro χ o 08:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
KEEP - There are actually thousands of independent reviews on the company done by professional content creators 11:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.152.55 ( talk)
KEEP - Sources seem reliable to me, however if the WP:SIRS criteria are thought to be shaky, then it can be a good idea to WP:STUBIFY the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:FE13:8400:725A:CF6B:567F:2D3A ( talk) 11:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even ignoring the comments by accounts with 1 edit (to this AFD), I'm seeing "Weak Delete" or "Leaning Delete" and given the pushback from SPAs, I'd like to see a stronger consensus before closing this discussion. Of course, another closer might view things differently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ignore the pushback. Do what feels right. :-)   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
An admin, doing "what feels right", without the backing of editor consensus, can get you called to WP:Deletion review for a cavity inspection. Very unpleasant. Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Yikes. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 00:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
👍 Like - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs) 17:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strongest possible delete. TWL wasn't working for me over the weekend, so I decided to wait even though I was mostly done. At this point though, I give up. Open a case request on me, I don't care. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 02:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Please delete: This article doesn't just fail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, it's also written like and advert and almost all accounts contributing are either single-purpose, or are paid contributors (both banned and following the policy). It would be best to delete, even if notable, so that it can be rewritten without COI, and to avoid the article reading like an advert. - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs) 17:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NCORP and HighKing. NB: I was going to close this as delete, but since I've edited the article, decided that it was preferable to let someone else do that. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    All this is laughable that this article could ever be recreated without using the same references or doing exactly the same work, People disguising they are paid editors and attacking a page so they can try and grab it when it goes back to upwork or to try and get them on a monthly plan. You are thieves thinking these guys want to pay three or 4 times for an article.. You are ruining your own platform and AI will soon prove without a doubt you are all doing paid editing, if it hasnt already and the network admins are just hiding it from you. This article is in a half dozen different categories.. Cant wait.. Going to suggest it to arb and the foundation, AI be used to identify admins and editors hiding UPE. Time for honoring yourself will soon be over highness. 47.153.142.52 ( talk) 03:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment Changes were made and the article has added significant references.. Let me also remind you that this will be a sure thing entry into the hebrew edition and then it could easily be moved here without any issues.. 47.153.142.52 ( talk) 04:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The fact this is an Israeli startup that has made these contributions from a country so small... also makes it inherently notable. 47.153.142.52 ( talk) 04:20, 19 July 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 The All-American Rejects. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Chris Gaylor

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

No indication of individual notability; WP:NM#C6 doesn't apply since no indication that Hushmoney is notable either. jlwoodwa ( talk) 20:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Toxic Gossip Train

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

Non-notable music piece, could perhaps merge into the article about the individual. Has not charted. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect or Delete I created this article under the impression that this was an official single released by Colleen Ballinger but since it has been stated by Ballinger's legal representatives that the single was illegally uploaded to Ballinger's official accounts by a third party. While the article could be reworked into an article about the video in which the song was sung, "hi.", this seems unusual to me. I do think this will be considered one of the most infamous "apology" videos in the future, due to the news coverage, the fact that she sings a 10 minute song as her "apology" and because she did not really apologize at all in it. However, other notable infamous YouTuber apology videos (e.g. Laura Lee, Tati Westbrook, Logan Paul, James Charles, Shane Dawson, Jeffree Star) do not have Wikipedia articles. I think the information featured in this article can be summarized in the Colleen Ballinger article, as were the videos for the aforementioned YouTubers.
Andthereitis ( talk) 06:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Emma Essex

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

Non-notable musician, can only find the usual social media links, no news for this individual. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete lack of reliable sourcing. The article cites two sources: Mobygames.com is an indiscriminate directory that provides no significant coverage, and Livore.it is a music review site with a short history - and no established track record of reliability. This doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST - MrOllie ( talk) 21:34, 13 July 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 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Mohammed Haruna

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

This BLP is very poorly sourced and shows no sign of passing WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. There are passing mentions of a footballer for King Faisal with this name, see Ghana Sports Page, but stats sites like Pulse Sports confirm that this other Haruna was born in 2002. Neither player of this name seems to have sufficient coverage for an article and certainly the 1988 one is not notable. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:34, 13 July 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 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Gabriele Bernasconi

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

Footballer that has played mostly in the 4th and 5th tiers of Swiss football and has no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. In my searches, I found Urner Wochenblatt, which is just an image caption, and Chalcio. The independent content in the Chalcio article is just (translated) With Gabriele Bernasconi – the least beaten goalkeeper among those in the six rounds of the category ... Raised in Lugano as a footballer, our (Photo AC Taverne) made it all the way through the Juventus youth academy and three years in the first team. The rest is just pure Q&A and quotes. Even if this article were considered acceptable, GNG and SPORTBASIC require multiple sources showing significant coverage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. And I hope these valuable sources find their way into the article. I didn't follow the suggestion to Merge this article but as far as I can see in the comments, the Merge target doesn't exist yet. Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Yasuj Chain Dam

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBUILD. Possible redirect to whatever body of water it connects to.... which isn't even noted in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/ Rational 18:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I don't want to straight up !vote keep since I haven't personally reviewed or searched for non-English sources, but power plants almost always will receive a level of coverage, and it seems probable it can be sourced using sources in the local language. SportingFlyer T· C 21:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I think these are small plants but nevertheless interesting. Our article says this chain of run-of-river is near Sisakht. If you look at the Google Maps satellite view, this is a hilly, arid location with some big creeks (or small rivers) and small canals. On those streams, you'll see some of these structures. What's harder to find is the refs that I know should be out there. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 22:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Google translation of our Farsi (Persian) article
  • Bostani, Fardin (August 1998). "Engineering Geological Investigations of the Master Plan of Pul Klu-Yasuj River Chain Power Plants". Geological survey of Iran. Retrieved 13 July 2023. Google translation from Farsi.
  • This translated article gives details to expand our article with info on individual structures. (Archived Farsi version)
Meets notability requirements and has information for significant expansion.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 23:05, 13 July 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 Eliyahu M. Goldratt. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The Choice (Goldratt book)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010, and has no sources cited. Could be merged to Eliyahu M. Goldratt or theory of constraints as an WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 13 July 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 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ahmad Nasir Safi

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

I found no sources in ProQuest or internet searches, including Persian searches. He played at a very low level in Germany but I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV there either. Does not seem to pass WP:SPORTBASIC #5, which is the minimum requirement for any sportsperson. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:58, 13 July 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 War of Mutina. Star Mississippi 01:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Octavian's march on Rome

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

The entire article is a WP:CFORK which wholly overlaps with the War of Mutina. This march is described by no reliable sources as a civil war. The extent of the reliable sources (ie not uncritically copying Appian) is also very sparse on the specifics of Octavian marching on the city: there is no basis for an independent article. All the text The vast majority of the text in the article at present is also WP:COPYVIO as it simply copies without attribution my work on War of Mutina; what isn't my text is entirely unreferenced. Ifly6 ( talk) 17:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Oppose: the topics are sufficiently different (the march is part of the war, not the same thing), so by WP:RELAR, having both pages is acceptable. The point about civil war (whilst valid, and you should make this change) is irrelevant. Godtres ( talk) 10:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Can you cite any sources showing that the march has received enough coverage to justify a separate article? Avilich ( talk) 23:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This clearly is a WP:POVFORK (or charitably, a WP:REDUNDANTFORK). The recently created page content is heavily copied from War of Mutina. Although there is some re-arrangement of the material, it constitutes WP:COPYWITHIN, unaltered copied text being all the way through this. Yet there is no attribution, so this actually constitutes a copy-vio. The copying is not in compliance with the Wikipedia CC attribution licence. Although this could be repaired, the question is why we need this article when it is all covered in its source article. The answer is it is not. There is nothing here that is not there, and I am unconvinced by the argument that this is merely a related subject. The page is currently covering the same subject. Thus a POVFORK/REDUNDANTFORK. I also notice the references have all been copied as in text SFN citations only, and the bibliography has not been copied across. As such, this is technically unreferenced (and I am not reassured that the page creator has verified any of these references, as they have not apparently noticed this issue). Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 18:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Aside from the blatant violation of WP:CFORK and WP:COPYWITHIN and the other points raised above, there is only one paragraph actually describing the march. There is no reason why the march should be described separately from the conflict in which it took place. Avilich ( talk) 23:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete I agree that it is a clear violation of WP:CFORK, which I was not aware of when I created the article. Romulus Cyrus ( talk) 08:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Institute of Cape Wine Masters

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

Punchline is "unsalvageable promotional content". I see nothing other than self-promoting, probably paid, editing throughout the article history. There is very little that can be saved and I think it is better off deleted. MarcGarver ( talk) 16:22, 13 July 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 Associate international cricket in 2023#2023 Valletta Cup. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 Valletta Cup

2023 Valletta Cup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub of tournament with no reliable or independent sources to come close to passing WP:GNG or WP:CRIN. ESPN is a database, not a sign of notability. This event has pages from previous years, but all of those have at least some coverage in local media from one or more competing nations. Unfortunately this one does not (as yet) have any and hence fails WP:N and WP:RS. Bs1jac ( talk) 15:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Note, as it stands, I believe the redirect to Associate international cricket in 2023 should be restored until such time that notable sources are available. I did this earlier as a non-controversial change but the redirect was removed again (in good faith) and I don't want an edit war, hence the AfD. Bs1jac ( talk) 15:34, 13 July 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 13:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Veejay (software)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No RS/IS/SIGCOV sources. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No significant coverage, fails GNG and NSOFT. The google search provided by Onetimememorial does not contain any news coverage of this software; the articles about VJing as a concept do not mention this program at all (at least, the ones I get back from doing that search). I've looked at the sources Siroxo provided and both appear to be broad surveys of software and not significant coverage of this program specifically. The ACM source mentions Veejay only once in passing (Outstanding packages include FLxER, FreeJ, Gephex and Veejay, all of which work with video files and streams in ways analogous to the actions of audio disc jockeys). The IEEE source's abstract suggests it's a broad survey of 150,000 open source projects, but I do not have access to the full text. If @ Siroxo or anyone else can provide sections of the IEEE article that do constitute significant coverage of the program I'd reconsider. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 16:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 08:55, 19 July 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 Illumitoon Entertainment. ✗ plicit 14:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Barry Watson (producer)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No IS sources. Looks to be attempting notability via inheritance, which is not allowed. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

WAsP

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No appropriate sources provided. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:24, 13 July 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 14:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Suzan Sabancı Dinçer

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

This hagiography of a living person was created in 2008. Appears to be a rough translation from a language I don't speak, likely Turkish. It was AfD'ed on 28 June 2008. At that AfD, the creator said: "Keep. It is a new entry and It will be edited." Although I'm mindful that there is no deadline, I do feel it's pertinent to point out that this editor hasn't touched the article at any time in the fifteen (15) years since he made that representation. The only genuinely reliable source cited in the article is the Forbes rich list that tells us she's a billionaire from a billionaire family, and our criteria require more than one reliable source. — S Marshall  T/ C 09:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep Limited English coverage [12]. Give it a pass based on the explanation from the Turkish language site. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep The sources in the Turkish article should be sufficient to establish notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:13, 16 July 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 23:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

John G. Wilson

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No acceptable sources. Company puff piece. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Incidentally, the somewhat humorous note above is from the firm's extant website [14]. — siro χ o 01:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Gnews has all kinds of people with this name in 19th Century newspapers, none for this fellow. Kudos on never having flown a toothbrush either. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:15, 13 July 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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Alliance University

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

Doesn't meets the WP:N criteria, the references used are also unreliable or are by the university themselves (for example their website). Ratnahastin ( talk) 13:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I have made a start on a cleanup, but it needs work from someone nearer to it who has access to sources. -- Bduke ( talk) 02:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
It may be open source and suitably licenced for sharing. I know a lot of them do that but worth checking. scope_creep Talk 10:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't see any language releasing the content on their pages. Since it appears likely to be kept and this won't impact assessment here, I'm going to stub it back on those grounds. Noting here for transparency. Star Mississippi 13:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Note, the ancient rev dels were not me, those had been done. I just handled what had been added this month. There seems to be some feuding in the history that I can't make heads or tails of. Star Mississippi 13:31, 21 July 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. Less Unless ( talk) 06:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Jayashree Patanekar

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Very poorly sourced. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 13 July 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 Market (economics). Star Mississippi 01:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Market abolitionism

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

Upon stumbling upon this article, the scope immediately seemed vague to me. I quickly found that many of the cited sources had nothing to do with the subject. Of the cited sources that do, they all appear to be primary sources from people directly associated with the subject. They also do not appear to actually use the term "market abolitionism" and instead offer critiques of markets, with only one passing use of the term "market abolitionist". I looked for sources on Google Scholar, but mostly found sources that appear to be completely unrelated. [15] As this article doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines, I'm proposing it for deletion. Grnrchst ( talk) 14:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Robin Hahnel (2007). "The Case against Markets". Journal of Economic Issues. 41 (4). Taylor & Francis: 1139–1159.
  2. ^ Adrian J. Walsh (1998). "Market Pathology and the Range of Commodity Exchange: A Preliminary Sketch". Public Affairs Quarterly. 12 (2). University of Illinois Press: 203–219.
  3. ^ Adrian Walsh; Richard Giulianotti (2006). Ethics, Money and Sport: This Sporting Mammon. Taylor & Francis. p. 19. ISBN  9781134317271.
  4. ^ Geoffrey M. Hodgson (2018). Wrong Turnings: How the Left Got Lost. University of Chicago Press. p. 194. ISBN  9780226505886.

SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Market (economics). My browser crashed and I lost my full source analysis but suffice it to say that the above four sources appear to invoke places where "market" and "abolition" are used in the same sentence but does not establish a body of thought known as "market abolitionism". If anything, these sources are either proposing (1) a socialist planning framework for replacing market systems, or (2) critiquing existing market systems by way of alternatives. None of these establishes "market abolitionism" as a unified body of thought but the critique can be covered as philosophical counterpoints within the existing article on economic markets. Though note that nothing in the existing article is reliably sourced for merger. czar 05:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Would support a redirect. I also looked through those sources and would agree with Czar's analysis. Tbh the only one I would say includes significant coverage is Walsh & Giulianotti, but they talk about it in an almost entirely different context than this existing article. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 10:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Market (economics), per Czar. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk) 22:28, 18 July 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 Billy Corgan. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Starchildren

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

Lack of reliable sources, no real notability. I tried redirecting to Billy Corgan as a compromise, but this was rudely reverted. Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 14:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

You accused me of performing an end run around deletion. Is that not rude? Rather than assume good faith, you accused me of being sneaky, which is blatantly false.
Read the articles you seem to think give this project notability; they barely mention Starchildren. How does that warrant keeping an article about a project that never did anything besides playing a few shows? Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 13:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Billy Corgan - I agree with the nom that the sources being cited in the article do not count as coverage for the topic, as they barely mention it. They have no actual discussion or coverage on it, they simply have a single sentence stating that it was a side project of Billy Corgan. Searching for additional sources only turn up the same kind of coverage - single sentence mentions of the band being a very brief side project of Corgan's that released one original song. It is already listed in the infobox on Corgan's article, though a sentence or two can probably stand to be added to the body of the article mentioning it. Rorshacma ( talk) 14:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Billy Corgan - It's true that Starchildren were mentioned in a couple of reliable publications, but as nothing but a little-known and unorganized side project. They only had two songs and three shows, and at least one of those shows was a gimmick in which some members of Smashing Pumpkins amazed the crowd by opening for themselves under a different name. This is of fancruft interest to the Smashing Pumpkins community, but there is no concrete or even encyclopedic information that can support an article here. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 17:41, 14 July 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 see a clear consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

2022 Carlos Alcaraz tennis season

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

Article violates WP:NOTSTATS. Everything significant in the tables can and should be summarised, in prose, at Carlos Alcaraz. There is nothing especially notable about this season. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Spain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Number 1 players generally are eligible for these sorts of articles, I'm not sure why this would be an exception. SportingFlyer T· C 21:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, zero reason to have a separate article fork. We don't have season articles for individuals in any other sports besides tennis and cricket, and given the active consensus for eliminating the latter it's clear these tenniscruft articles are unencyclopedic too. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    There's a huge difference betwen tennis and cricket. Cricket is a team sport and most people follow teams rather than individuals; tennis is an individual sport and fans follow their favourite players across the tour. Iffy★ Chat -- 11:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    We don't have season articles for sportspeople in other individual sports either, even though every single high-profile athlete even in some team sports receives just as much or more coverage during a given season. JoelleJay ( talk) 17:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Season articles for individual teams (eg. in Association Football) still remain. I do not think it is the most appropriate to make a comparison on that basis between team sports and individual sports, when one individual cannot necessarily influence the entire outcome of a team performance on a consistent basis. There is also a reasonable argument to be made that singles tennis is the most prominent individual sport in the world in terms of outreach and popularity. 115.66.66.93 ( talk) 04:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The only issue with the article as it stands is that the Yearly summary section has no text in it. This is an issue that can be solved by improving the article, not deleting it. Iffy★ Chat -- 11:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, this seems to be precisely as envisioned by WP:NOTSTATS: Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. I'm not really seeing a rationale for deletion here, let alone a policy-based one. -- Visviva ( talk) 04:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – both as a standard split off and an encyclopaedic topic that is quite easily notable. Should, however, include prose commentary on the season, but that is not a rationale for deletion. J947 † edits 11:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ J947, what about the rationale that IRS SIGCOV of the season as a whole has not been identified to demonstrate the topic actually passes GNG? JoelleJay ( talk) 22:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ JoelleJay: I'm not sure why coverage of the season as a whole would be necessary? It's a splitoff article from Carlos Alcaraz that can go into more detail than the main page. It's just for convenience; it is helpful but not necessary that the season is consistently discussed in itself. What matters is that across the season there is enough coverage to sustain an article. And of course there is. J947 † edits 22:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Splitting is permitted only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia. The topic does need to receive GNG coverage as any other page would. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Nothing about notability as a whole being required. If rs A has sigcov on John Doe's tennis career, rs B has sigcov on John Doe's scientific endeavours, and rs C has sigcov on his brief acting career, and the link between these roles of John Doe is only mentioned in passing, then John Doe is notable irregardless of whether he isn't covered as a whole. Because that is the job of an encyclopaedia – to connect evidence together and provide a broad overview of a topic. There's a wealth of information to cover on Alcaraz, far too great for one article, and splitting attempts should not be thwarted by a narrow interpretation of an information page. It makes sense that his famous seasons are discussed in separate articles, and perhaps for lesser seasons cover two seasons in one article, whether or not any RS has happened to discuss "Alcaraz' 2025–26 tennis seasons". It is also quite probable that there is sigcov on this season as a whole, but that's not the question. J947 † edits 23:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I do not think it is fair to claim that there was nothing notable about this season, considering Alcaraz broke the record for the Youngest Player to ever be ranked No. 1 on the ATP rankings. He also won a grand slam. He also broke the records of the youngest player to win the Miami and Madrid Open, both of which are Masters 1000 events and are only second in prestige to the Grand Slams. Seasons like Novak Djokovic’s 2009 season and Rafael Nadal’s 2006 season also have articles but are not being considered for deletion, despite these players arguably achieving less in those respective years than Alcaraz in 2022. 115.66.66.93 ( talk) 04:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. There is literally not a single source discussed here or in the article that covers his "season". Without such sources being identified there is no P&G-based rationale to keep this article. JoelleJay ( talk) 17:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Alcaraz's 2022 season is notable for him becoming the youngest year-end World No. 1 in the Open Era of tennis - a record that had previously been held by Lleyton Hewitt for nearly 20 years. Throughout that season, Carlos accomplished a number of other feats - such as being the youngest-ever champion of a few prestigious tournaments - which is of interest to tennis fans and students of the sport alike. If anything, I'd rather condense the corresponding section of his main Wikipedia page than get rid of this one. Chernorizets ( talk) 02:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Chernorizets, the subject still needs to meet GNG as a standalone topic. Do you have any sources of SIGCOV in independent (so not from ATP or any sports org) secondary RS on this season as a whole? I'm also curious how you arrived here with only ~115 edits... JoelleJay ( talk) 16:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ JoelleJay I'm a big tennis fan, and in particular a fan of Carlos and his meteoric ascent to the top of men's tennis, so I noticed the deletion proposal banner on the page not long after it had been placed there. I'm going to gloss over the passive-aggressive undertones of your last sentence because, as a good friend likes to say, you do you.
    This whole discussion is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Only current, and in some cases former, world No. 1 tennis players have dedicated articles about their tennis seasons on Wikipedia. That's a tiny percentage of all the players in general, and of those for which there are articles in particular. It in no way "overburdens" the encyclopedia or detracts from its tone. Season-specific articles are of great significance for tennis fans, because they often depict historic rivalries, achievements in the sport, changing of the guard, etc. It is part of tennis culture, and some of the individual matches themselves have articles when they've reached sufficient notability.
    Even if you wanted to make a broader argument that per-season tennis player articles should not exist, or that they should be brought to a higher standard, proposing the deletion of the current world no. 1 player's historic 2022 season seems like a strangely selective, piecemeal way of going about it. Start with the players that have multiple such articles - like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic - and observe the reactions of the community. Chernorizets ( talk) 21:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    None of these arguments are policy- or guideline-based (and in fact are solidly WP:ATA). To have a standalone article on wikipedia, a subject must meet WP:N, and that requires SIGCOV in independent secondary RS. No one has put forward a single source meeting those criteria, let alone the multiple required. We are an encyclopedia, not a statistics directory or fandom. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I agree that the article can be improved with sources, and the sources fortunately do exist. That, however, is a different conversation from "just delete it". I see no issue with adding the appropriate notices on the page that it needs to be brought up to a better standard, and in fact I've recommended as much on the Carlos Alcaraz talk page (as well as moving relevant content here). Chernorizets ( talk) 22:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The kid won a Grandslam at 19, became world number 1 at 19 and finished year end number 1 at 19, in addition to numerous Masters 1000 wins. Definitely keep. Its the first top season of a historic tennis player

Exxcalibur808 ( talk) 19:15, 16 July 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 14:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Federation of Anarchist Communists

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

This article has existed as a stub, without any references to reliable sources, more or less in the same form since 2005. I checked through my own sources at hand and couldn't find anything other than a single passing reference in The Continuum Companion to Anarchism. As this article appears not to meet our general notability guidelines, I'm proposing it for deletion. Grnrchst ( talk) 13:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: I can't access the above source, sorry. I did find some extra information in Black Flame, but it's very sparse. Summary style would say: FdCA was formed during the 1980s while many new platformist organisations were being established (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 259); it joined the International Libertarian Solidarity (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 224); it supports "historical materialism" (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 107); and it advocates "organisational dualism" (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 126). This doesn't seem like enough for an article, even a stub. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 11:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    imo even basic stubs like that are useful, especially if the information isn't available in continuous paragraphs and is scattered through a book like the one you used to write that summary. But that's still only one source, so... -- asilvering ( talk) 17:06, 15 July 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 13:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Kerala Samajam Model School

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 12:49, 13 July 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 13:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Olympic Primary School

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. The guardian article listed in references, is not enough for GNG and NORG. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 12:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Previously linked in the article: https://kenyacradle.com/olympic-primary-school/ is a wikipedia mirror, which literally copied the article to it. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 12:48, 13 July 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 will move the film article here. Star Mississippi 01:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

2001: A Space Odyssey

2001: A Space Odyssey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the contents are (or should be) in 2001: A Space Odyssey (film), which should also be moved here. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per previous.
Godtres ( talk) 14:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Brachy08 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:21, 14 July 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 undeletion of these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Belgium in Eurovision Choir

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

Additional articles in the same series for consideration:

Denmark in Eurovision Choir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Germany in Eurovision Choir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Latvia in Eurovision Choir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slovenia in Eurovision Choir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wales in Eurovision Choir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV does not appear to be met with this series of articles. All relevant information is already contained within Eurovision Choir, Eurovision Choir of the Year 2017 and Eurovision Choir 2019, and separate articles outlining specific information for each country is unnecessary. The contest is currently on permanent hiatus, meaning that opportunities to develop these articles are non-existant, and there is very limited coverage outside of the "Eurovision bubble" which would support continuing to host these articles. Additionally, previous consensus has already been reached to delete country articles for similar contests, e.g. Turkvision Song Contest (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyumen Oblast in the Turkvision Song Contest). Sims2aholic8 ( talk) 08:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Latvia, Slovenia, and Wales. Sims2aholic8 ( talk) 09:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If you strip out the "origins of the event" section which is information from the main Eurovision Choir article (and is a copy/paste in each of these articles), you're left with some prose saying the country participated, a table with two lines of participants, and a second table with two lines saying who commented on the performances on tv/radio. I find the commentators in the context of Choir to be WP:CRUFT. The participants are already included in each year's article ( 2017 and 2019). If there were more than two contests, perhaps these pages or a "list of entries" page could be appropriate. However, it's easy to just look at each year's page to see the country in question's participant. I see little need for these pages in a practical sense. With the future of the event unlikely, a redirect to keep open the possibility of expansion seems unnecessary. Grk1011 ( talk) 14:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ralph René

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

Self-published conspiracy theorist who fails WP:GNG. Of the sources given, two are from subject's own website, three are IMDB TV listings, and two are patent sheets. No secondary sources. Rift ( talk) 07:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: The IMDb listings are a bit misleading; I think the editor who added the citation to The Truth Behind the Moon Landings: Stranger Than Fiction intended to cite the documentary itself, not its entry on IMDb. However, René's appearance in a documentary is not independent coverage of him, and the same goes for an appearance on Penn & Teller. My BEFORE search yielded mentions in two articles, both of which appeared in numerous publications: 1 and 2. I would argue that they are both passing mentions, as neither cover René in particular detail or with any attention beyond briefly presenting his views as an example of moon landing conspiracies. Actualcpscm ( talk) 09:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Reading the article, it's clear that almost the entire thing is based on the subject's self-promotion. Sources confirm does not meet WP:BASIC — siro χ o 11:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. They placed a reflector on the moon, and we have photos from orbit of the landing sites. This appears PROMO, but he's been deceased for over a decade now, may he rest in peace. I see no sourcing we can use, beyond proof he was on TV a few times. Heck, I've been on TV. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
While I very much agree that the moon landing was not staged, I don‘t think that directly affects notability of this individual. You know, even if it turned out that the moon isn‘t real, that wouldn‘t make them notable. I guess. FBDB Actualcpscm ( talk) 16:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Deleting for lack of any coverage in RS is the reason. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:00, 13 July 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 E. C. Stearns & Company. As an aside, for the closer's sake, please provide a link to the Merge or Redirect target you are proposing. Yes, I can go look for it, which is what I did, but there is always the possibility that I find a different page that the one participants are desiring. It's also faster if you just provide a link to the target you are arguing for. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Avis Stearns Van Wagenen

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

Fails WP:BIO: no sources. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to the Stearns company article. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:25, 13 July 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! 07:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

OrSiSo

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

Routine news articles. The company doesn't have the significant coverage required according to WP:NCORP. US-Verified ( talk) 08:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 13 July 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 Gnomic poetry. Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Gnome (rhetoric)

Gnome (rhetoric) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"Gnome" is used by various authors as a synonym for either maxim, proverb, or aphorism. It is not a distinct concept, and consequently should not be the subject of an article, per WP:NOTDICT. There is no clear redirect target and the disambiguator makes it an unlikely search term, so deletion seems the best option. (I don't feel that a soft redirect to Wiktionary would be helpful in this case, as there is already a Wiktionary link at Gnome (disambiguation), a more likely landing point for anyone searching for a definition.)
This is a contested PROD; it was challenged by Kvng on the grounds that "WP:NOTDICT can be controversial". Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 05:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per siroxo. This seems like a good use case for a broad-concept article, in view of the scholarly discussion of what exactly a gnome is and whether/how it should be distinguished from a maxim (much of which seems, interestingly, to be particular to the Anglo-Saxonist community, e.g. here is a review of a book that I don't have access to that discusses the topic; here is said author's earlier MPhil thesis that also delves into the definition of "gnome" at considerable length; here is another article with considerable what-is-a-gnome discussion). In general, leaning too heavily on NOTDICT to the exclusion of BCA tends to disadvantage our coverage of fields (including e.g. most of the humanities, soft social sciences, and law) in which much of the scholarly action is precisely about the disputation of terms. -- Visviva ( talk) 18:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    On review of the arguments and sources I'm convinced that the BCA of my dreams is at least equally viable at Gnomic poetry (which already has some brief discussion of the English medieval literature that seems to be associated with the more specific definitions of "gnome"), so I'll join in supporting a redirect to gnomic poetry. -- Visviva ( talk) 05:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Klaus Berger (theologian), who coined the term. Right now, the article has only one source -- Berger -- so there's nothing that couldn't just be moved over there. If someone wants to build it out later, no prejudice against them doing so. With no independent secondary sourcing in the article at all, however, it's better elsewhere. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Rhododendrites what do you think of my merge alternate proposal below? — siro χ o 06:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I didn't get deep enough in the sourcing to know. If you see that the specific term "gnome" as defined by Berger and used in rhetoric has a connection to "gnomic poetry" and not to any other merge target other than Berger, I don't object, though I'd still default to sending it to the Berger article and defer to more knowledgeable editors to make bold changes from there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • This isn't an article - it is a definition of an obscure meaning of the term, and nothing else. Not sure if a redirect to the creator of the term is better than a redirect to Wiktionary, or just deleting it. Walt Yoder ( talk) 00:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • (retracted my above !vote) I've investigated the scholar results a bit, and I think this term is heavily enough influenced by its own roots in gnomic poetry that the article be merged to that location (until an editor is able to split out more than a stub). — siro χ o 01:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, we have editors arguing for Delete, Keep and Merge to two different article targets. In three words, no consensus yet. And closers do not issue Super Votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete does not appear to have caught on as a term. Vaguely DICDEF. Super !votes sound incredible! Oaktree b ( talk) 15:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - WP:STUBS are not a problem. I'm confident we'll eventually determine the best organization for this material. There's no rush to delete. ~ Kvng ( talk) 13:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Kvng: I don't think anyone has said that the article should be deleted because it's a stub. My concern, echoed by Oaktree and Walt Yoder, was that this is a dictionary definition, and WP:NOTDICT (policy) says that this is a valid reason for deletion. Others have argued that the content could be moved elsewhere, or that the page could be rewritten into a broad-concept article, but if you're saying that page should simply be kept as-is, it would be helpful if you could explain why you don't think NOTDICT applies. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 15:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Siroxo said (until an editor is able to split out more than a stub). There doesn't seem to be a consensus here about what to do so I'm suggesting we kick the question out of AfD and let editors do whatever reorganization is needed without the threat of deletion. WP:NOTCLEANUP WP:NODEADLINES. ~ Kvng ( talk) 18:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    My goal with the merge suggestion is to provide a better article to a reader who is trying to learn about this concept. The current stub would be adequate (IMO) if there were no good merge target, but it's better to merge or redirect given the presence of a good target. — siro χ o 21:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Rhododendrites and Siroxo: I hope you don't mind, but in the interest of avoiding a no-consensus outcome, I'd like to discuss this a little further. When proposing a merge, the obvious question is WP:Merge what?. The article Gnomic poetry already defines the word "gnome"; there is nothing in the opening sentence of gnome (rhetoric) that is missing from gnomic poetry, except the claim that gnomes are usually in hexameter. This claim is not supported by the EB source, and I think it's generally bad practice to merge unsourced content. As for the two sentences about Berger, I can't see a place for them in that article. So as it stands, I don't see anything from gnome (rhetoric) that should be merged to gnomic poetry.
    Turning to Rhododendrites' proposal: I don't really understand the article's claim about Klaus Berger. The use of the word "gnome" to mean "maxim" is definitely ancient Greek, so Berger didn't invent it. He may have used it in a new way or brought it into prominence or something, but if so, the primary source isn't going to verify that claim. Besides which, same issue as before: I don't see how any of the content from gnome (rhetoric) could be worked into Klaus Berger (theologian). Possibly something could be written about gnomes in the Klaus Berger article, but that would require research to be done and new content to be written, at which point you're not really proposing a merge but rather an expansion of one article and the redirection of the other.
    So I don't think a merge would be appropriate, but I'm happy to !vote redirect rather than delete if there's a feeling that the content ought to be preserved. Gnomic poetry seems to be the most helpful target from the reader's perspective. If you (Rhododendrites and siroχo) agree, then this might bring us closer to a consensus. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 16:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm fine with a redirect to gnomic poetry. — siro χ o 20:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Walt Yoder and Oaktree b: Following on from the above, would either of you be willing to support a redirect to Gnomic poetry, to help us arrive at a consensus (and to make life easier for our hard-working AFD closers)? No obligation to change your !vote or comment further if you don't wish to. (Also pinging Visviva so they aren't left out of the developing discussion, but again, no obligation to comment.) Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 05:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
That's fine, the redirect. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Basware

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. Refs are routine business news. scope_creep Talk 06:27, 29 June 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 06:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

A single reference isn't ample coverage. That is you mistaking PR and paid coverage for valid coverage that doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS. The Finnish source comes from an interview and a press-release and the book while admittedly a secondary source is content that comes directly from the company website and is not that independent. scope_creep Talk 05:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Based on the limited preview to the Aamulehti piece, I'd be inclined to agree with Scope_creep, or at least discount it heavily. With the first sentence starting with Basware says it will.., it has all the hallmarks of a journalist taking a press release and rephrasing it.
    I've tried to look for better sourcing in Finnish language newspapers, but it's a pretty rough going. There's tons of hits, but almost all of it is things like this where the company is mentioned briefly, or things like this which are obviously based solely on a company press release.
    I didn't look at every hit, but the ones that struck out as different are these two news stories (both paywalled, unfortunately), which are 408 and 456 words about an information security problem in a Basware product and a whistleblower coming out with details about the problem. The pieces involve commentary by entities like FICORA's National Cyber Security Center and Finnish Financial Supervisory Authority .
    I don't feel quite comfortable enough with WP:NCORP to straight-up !vote here, but I think this is borderline at best. - Ljleppan ( talk) 07:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for that. I translated a whole bunch of Finish articles that mentioned the company as part of the WP:BEFORE, and there was nothing of depth. There is a big PR and corporate social media presence because it is a software company. It needs to do that to survive, but there is little outside that domain. scope_creep Talk 07:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Yeah, that pretty much sums up my feelings as well. I guess I'll mark myself down as a weak delete for now: if the two Helsingin Sanomat pieces about a single infosec issue are the best there is, it's not a lot. Ljleppan ( talk) 08:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry but I'm not seeing a consensus here. Perhaps another week will help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep per Visviva. Okoslavia ( talk) 10:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Lets examine the first two blocks of references:
  • Ref 1 [17] Company site. Fails WP:SIRS Non-rs.
  • Ref 2 [18] Annual report. Fails WP:SIRS Non-rs.
  • Ref 3 [19] Paywalled. Basware makes a profit every year.
  • Ref 4 404'd
  • Ref 5 404'd
  • Ref 6 404'd
  • Ref 7 404'd
  • Ref 8 Paywalled. The trans-title tag states "Basware made acquisitions in Germany worth more than 12 million euros" That is routine coverage, covered by WP:CORPDEPTH. It fails that policy.
  • Ref 9 404'd
  • Ref 10 [20] Press-release. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Ref 11 [21] States its a press-release Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 12 [22] Basware tribunal Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS

I don't have any faith that the first paywalled reference in any good when compared to the quality of the other references. It currently an advert and fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep Talk 10:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Refs 4-7 and 9 are all from the company's own website. Tivi, the publication of ref #8 is at best a mixed bag (to the point that while I have access to almost every newspaper in Finland through work, we don't seem to have bothered to subscribe to it), and absent evidence to the contrary I'd presume the story it fails CORPDEPTH. Ljleppan ( talk) 10:42, 17 July 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. After three relists there is a clear consensus that subject passes GNG. (non-admin closure) Okoslavia ( talk) 05:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Dance cover

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

Non-notable topic; article itself little to no citations and full of original research. lullabying ( talk) 02:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Verging on No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: Call it a WP:HEY Keep if you want. The sources currently in the article are more than sufficient for establishing notability. I'm sure there's a lot more to be said about this trend and its history, too. Actualcpscm ( talk) 10:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sources have been found to establish notability. Consider moving to Cover dance since that's the term used in most sources. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I tend to agree with the move. From my little research while improving the article, "cover dance" is the activity/hobby/community/etc, whereas "dance cover" is the actual performance and/or recording, so cover dance is the broader term. We could probably just do a WP:BOLD move after the AFD closes. — siro χ o 03:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the article's current refs. Thanks for adding them, @ Siroxo!
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 03:45, 14 July 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 Doctor Who villains. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Sil (Doctor Who)

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

Despite some potential notability, given that the character was the star of a film, the character's article does not currently meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 02:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of Doctor Who villains. Didn’t Sil appear more than once? I don’t really remember, but in any case it might be time to make a “not Tardis Data Core” essay Dronebogus ( talk) 22:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Blinovitch Limitation Effect, Destrii, Muriel Frost, Kadiatu Lethbridge-Stewart, Iris Wildthyme, Shayde, Fey Truscott-Sade, Sam Jones (Doctor Who), Molly O'Sullivan, Jason Kane (Doctor Who), Flip Jackson, Mila (Doctor Who), Charley Pollard, Evelyn Smythe, Thomas Brewster (Doctor Who), Abby (Doctor Who), Vislor Turlough, Rutan (Doctor Who), Draconian (Doctor Who), Sisterhood of Karn, Henry Gordon Jago, Professor George Litefoot, Forge (Doctor Who), Timewyrm, Threshold (Doctor Who), Coal Hill School, Nimrod (Doctor Who), Nobody No-One, Borusa, The Monk (Doctor Who), Polly (Doctor Who), Ben Jackson (Doctor Who), List of UNIT personnel, John and Gillian, Shalka Doctor, Sabbath (Doctor Who), Chris Cwej, Grandfather Paradox (Doctor Who), The Other (Doctor Who), Alan Jackson (The Sarah Jane Adventures), Vortis (Doctor Who), Thal (Doctor Who), Ogron, Werewolf (Doctor Who), Sil (Doctor Who), White Guardian, Mara (Doctor Who), Sabalom Glitz, Castellan (Doctor Who), Professor Edward Travers, Alpha Centauri (Doctor Who)
Such a mass deletion would significantly alter the coverage of Doctor Who on wikipedia. WikiProject Doctor Who was not informed beforehand. Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 15:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Sil (Doctor Who) has had clean-up templates (including notability) for well over a year. The Dr Who project automatically get notified of related deletion discussions. Sionk ( talk) 16:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC) reply
They did get such notifications. They got fifty-one of them over two days. What did you expect them to do in those circumstances? Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 16:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Anameofmyveryown, many of these AFD nominations have been withdrawn after I informed the nominator that I thought they were overwhelming AFD space. And I did inform the Doctor Who WikiProject yesterday when I saw all of the nominations, I posted a notice on their talk page (see here) which you know because you responded to my notice. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The operative word in my comment was "beforehand". The first AFD was lodged at 07:00, 01:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC). Your notice was posted 07:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC), which was 5hrs 21mins afterwards. Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 00:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply
It's normal for interested parties to be informed after a nomination, rather than beforehand. As I said above, many of these articles had issues that had been flagged up months beforehand. Sionk ( talk) 15:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply
WikiProject DW had years to clean those articles up. Thank you for noting that User:Pokelego999 deserves a barnstar for tackling this issue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get some consensus on the redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like other Doctor Who articles, we need some agreement on a redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 13 July 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 Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Mara (Doctor Who)

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

Despite some potential notability, subject is a minor recurring villain who's article is rather short and does not display GNG nor SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk) 02:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens Dronebogus ( talk) 22:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, two different redirect targets mentioned at List of Doctor Who characters is not suitable as it is a redirect itself.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like I said in my first relist, List of Doctor Who characters is not a suitable redirect target as it is, a redirect! Agree on another redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: if the list of characters isn't a suitable target, then List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens is fine. The target is briefly discussed there. Shooterwalker ( talk) 22:31, 13 July 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 Time Lord. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Castellan (Doctor Who)

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

Rather minor recurring character. Despite there being some sources, it doesn't seem to meet SIGCOV or GNG. Pokelego999 ( talk) 02:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Time Lord, since it seems to discuss a reoccurring aspect of TL culture and not a particular character. Dronebogus ( talk) 22:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Does not pass WP:SIGCOV without independent reception/analysis. Redirect would be a good WP:ATD if there is a suitable target. Shooterwalker ( talk) 02:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different redirect targets proposed. And List of Doctor Who characters won't be appropriate as it is a redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters so it's that article or Time Lord.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 10:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no agreement on redirection target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: Time Lord makes more sense, since the list is really just a series of one line redirects. Shooterwalker ( talk) 22:29, 13 July 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 03:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Jagran Public School, Lucknow

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

Created by a single purpose editor. Unreferenced and no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 03:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes I am hungry to delete it. Why not? Okoslavia ( talk) 22:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 13 July 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 List of public art in Shanghai. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Statue of Ma Zhanshan

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Zhang Side, notability is not established with substantive sources. Existence of art outdoors is not automatic notability and no basis to remove a prod without addressing the unacceptable lack of sources and GNG failure. Features in a park can also be included in the park article without stand-alone articles. Reywas92 Talk 03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Snak the Ripper

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

Has been to AfD before, closed for no agreement. I can't find anything beyond hyper-local sources that would support keeping this. Not meeting general or musician notability guidelines. Also, no new sources have turned up since the last nomination for AfD. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm wondering what has changed in the past 3 months since the last AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I'm genuinely surprised this doesn't pass WP:GNG more "clearly" (in the sense we have to debate this), but after review I think the sources available (a multitude of Canadian coverage from around the country at different time frames) still pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 21:16, 13 July 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 CSI: NY characters. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Adam Ross (CSI: NY)

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

Article uses unreliable sources (IMDB, I believe CSI: FIles is a fan page), a quick search on Google gives little to no results focusing on the character. Spinixster (chat!) 01:44, 6 July 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!) 01:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. All the current sources are user-generated content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qcne ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Adam Ross is a main character on a television series that has been off the air for ten years. There would have been limited news about him back then except from entertainment sources. There is less available now because websites purge old pages.
    As for CSI Files, yes it was set up for fans of the CSI franchise allowing them to discuss the episodes, characters, and actors. That part is fan-generated. But the site also contains news articles — most pulled from other sites, episode reviews detailing the various characters' situations and behavior, and interviews by freelance writers. That part is not fan-generated. Ducky Submarine ( talk) 20:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Ducky Submarine Check out WP:FICT. Just because a character is the main character in a popular show does not mean that the character is notable. The article is full of WP:Fancruft and there are no sources that demonstrate notability.
    An example of a notable character page similar to Adam Ross would be Ziva David; as you can see, the article also talks about her influence outside of the show. If you can't find sources to demonstrate the character's notability outside of CSI: NY, then I'm afraid the character doesn't warrant a page. Spinixster (chat!) 01:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Spinixster The Ziva David article is impressive. But if that is the standard for character pages few will make the cut. Not every article qualifies as "first class". That doesn't mean that they are not full of useful information for readers who are interested.
    As for notability outside of CSI: NY, Adam Ross, along with most other television characters, is only notable for what he does inside the actual show. He is just a character. Not warranting a New York Times article does not make his page of no value to readers. Ducky Submarine ( talk) 20:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Ducky Submarine Then Adam Ross does not warrant a page, per WP:NOTCATALOG. Again, from WP:FICT: The Wikipedia's general notability guideline is appropriate and sufficient for demonstrating the notability of fictional elements. Specifically, fictional elements are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources about the fictional element; when a fictional element is presumed notable, a separate article to cover that element is usually acceptable.
    I only used the Ziva David article as an example of a character that had an impact outside of the show; I did not say that Ziva David is the ideal character page, the page is honestly a big mess right now. Spinixster (chat!) 01:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Just going over the sources, most are either semi-reliable or unreliable. CSI Files is a tertiary blog source. As for notability, I agree with Spinixster's assessment of characters having an impact outside the show. Conyo14 ( talk) 22:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List_of_CSI:_NY_characters. Not seeing enough to keep this per WP:GNG, just ap lot summary WP:FANCRUFT, but redirects are WP:CHEAP, so why not WP:SOFTDELETE? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for redirection which is what happens in a lot of AFDs about fictional characters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 13 July 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! 02:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Afghan Army (1978-1992)

Afghan Army (1978-1992) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is an unreliable WP:CFORK of Afghan Army. The only new data in the article, the equipment list sourced from Никитенко Е. Г. Афганистан: От войны 80-х до прогноза новых войн. — М.: Астрель : ACT, 2004, has been amended in the process of transcription to increase equipment numbers falsely: 768 to 1568 tanks, 2900 artillery pieces to more than 4,000, etc. There is nothing here which should not be easily merged with Afghan Army before deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Buckshot06 (talk) 02:15, 13 July 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ivan Katchanovski

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

The article is a WP:COATRACK for a WP:FRINGE theory of EuroMaidan that has been promoted mainly by Russian state media. Katchanovksi himself is notable neither as an academic, nor as a writer. What content is notable about the theory itself should be rolled into Revolution of Dignity. Nangaf ( talk) 15:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: I’m on the fence. He is also a real academic, and coauthor of the respectable Historical Dictionary of Ukraine. But I cannot confirm that he meets any of the criteria at WP:PROF. Google Scholar shows a small number of works with a lot of citations, [27] but are there enough in peer-reviewed pubs to support notability?  — Michael  Z. 13:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Admittedly, the only case for notability from the article itself is his Maidan false-flag theory, and IMO that is kind of like WP:1E, which can appear in articles where it belongs and doesn’t warrant an author’s bio. I see he is currently linked in Euromaidan (EDIT: deleted) [28] but not mentioned nor cited there nor in Revolution of Dignity, nor Maidan casualties. I’m voting delete.  — Michael  Z. 13:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep on the grounds that WP:NAUTHOR item #2 as long as the page is expanded and includes more information other than this one theory. If it can't be done, I would merge it into an existing article. - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs) 14:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Even if you consider Katchanovski a “creative professional” (when he held a seminar at his university and brought a paper to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association) and the thesis “a significant new theory,” it was originated by fringe websites (like Global Research.ca) and Russian state media (like RT (TV network)) in February–March 2014, not by Katchanovski in October.  — Michael  Z. 15:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Incidentally, the more appropriate guidelines for this line of thought are WP:PROF, criteria no. 1, 4, or 7, and I don’t think they are met.  — Michael  Z. 16:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't understand. Which "significant new concept, theory, or technique" did he pioneer? The Maidan sniper "theory"? I think the criteria uses "theory" in a different way from, say, "conspiracy theory"; it means some significant new theory in some scholarly field, for example. He definitely doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. But odd to judge him there given he is not a journalist and his books are academic. More apt guideline to check would be WP:PROF. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
To clarify my nomination: going by the details of his biography, the only possible criterion of WP:PROF that Katchanovski might meet is 7 ('The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity') and that impact is essentially solely for the false flag theory of Maidan. Unless there are other grounds for notability -- and I do not consider that his written works qualify him as a notable WP:AUTHOR -- it would be better to include this this theory in the appropriate article on Maidan rather than a biographic article. Nangaf ( talk) 19:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Not notable per WP:NACADEMIC. As the proposer notes, the article is a mess, mainly about a conspiracy theory. Adoring nanny ( talk) 13:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Another user is suggesting we keep per WP:NAUTHOR item 2, which says says 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. (emphasis added). Katchanovski fails this because the conspiracy theory is not significant. It's also unclear to me if he originated it. Adoring nanny ( talk) 15:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep, I think it respects WP:SCHOLAR as it is widely cited in academic studies:

Quoted in Google Scholar 1557 times, with h-index 21 and i10-index 36. [29]
"The separatist war in Donbas: a violent break-up of Ukraine?" Cited 148 times.
"The paradox of American unionism: Why Americans like unions more than Canadians do, but join much less" Cited 132 times.
"Regional political divisions in Ukraine in 1991–2006" Cited 95 times.
"The future of private sector unions in the US" Cited 88 times.
"Divergence in growth in post-communist countries" Cited 81 times.
"Cleft Countries. Regional Political Divisions and Cultures in Post-Soviet Ukraine and Moldova. With a Foreword by Francis Fukuyama" Cited 77 times.
Widely quoted in Google Books. [30]
Widely quoted in Google News. [31]
I would also urge colleagues to use the term 'conspiracy theorist' with care (per WP:BLP) because this academic is not widely referred to in these terms in the sources.-- Mhorg ( talk) 19:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
So what? Are you saying people with those numbers all automatically meet some particular notability threshold? I don’t know what those numbers mean.
I don’t know how many citations or whether those citations are “independent reliable sources” or indicate “a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources,” or “a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity” (WP:PROF).  — Michael  Z. 20:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Heh, “widely quoted” in the news, with results topped by The Grayzone, editorials under his byline, an interview by the Tehran Times, and some lefty websites obsessed with “Ukrainian Nazis.”  — Michael  Z. 21:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
He is a well-known scholar. For example, some important Western sources quoted him:
Mhorg ( talk) 22:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
These alone qualify him under NPROF #7 BhamBoi ( talk) 07:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
One of these is an op ed by him. None of them are about him. One of them (La Razon) quotes him extensively; the others are a single quote. This does not demonstrate "substantial impact". BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Please see my note above. While it is possible that the false flag theory of Maidan might qualify as 'substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity' based on media coverage, since Katchanovski's notability does not extend to any other topic, it would be preferable to include what is notable about the theory in the appropriate article about Maidan and delete the biographical article, since he is WP:1E and the article a WP:COATRACK. Nangaf ( talk) 20:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • It is difficult to say what exactly was his "substantial impact" (in academia and outside). Is he an author of the Maidan "false flag theory"? Hardly. That has been debated and investigated by others. See this NYT investigation, for example, that does not mentioned Katchanovsky [51]. We can only say his claims on Twitter and elsewhere were briefly mentioned a number of times. They were usually trivial comments on current events. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep of course, scholar academic with number of peer reviewed articles and publications, well-recognised, no reason to delete the page, other than personal dislike of his theories. Marcelus ( talk) 11:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Marcelus: Can you elaborate why you think IK is a notable WP:ACADEMIC? As far as I can tell he does not meet the appropriate criteria. Nangaf ( talk) 08:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
He is influential and notable academic, author of several books and articles in scientific journals. Marcelus ( talk) 12:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Generating dismisinformation [52] can add him some notability notoriety, but it does not help him as WP:ACADEMIC. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Please be careful about using 'Generating disinformation' per WP:BLP. The source you brought in does not use such terms when talking about this person. Mhorg ( talk) 18:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Well, that particular publication does describe the "theory" as refuted misinformation and cites him as the source of the "theory". Quickly checking, one can find this opinion by Taras Kuzio who says about two papers by K. which, according to him, "have generated controversy because they are revisionist and have little in common with academic scholarship." My very best wishes ( talk) 20:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Katchanovski's academic output is meagre and not by itself sufficient under WP:NPROF. What evidence is there of any influence on his field? Nangaf ( talk) 20:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. First of all, he hardly passes WP:GNG because most cited sources only mention him or his work in passing, there is no more substantial coverage. These are really just citations of his claims. Yes, his claims are highly controversial and as such were cited in various contexts. Which boils down to the only significant argument to "keep" this page: he has a presumably high citation H index. But is it high enough to establish notability? I am not convinced. Looking at the guideline, Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), it says: Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used.. Still, the current version of the page is sourced. A promotion? Yes, maybe. The involvement of someone "with close connection to the subject", the prolonged discussions, waste of time and claims about this page becoming an "attack page" [53] tips the balance toward "delete", in my opinion. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    It would be first deletion of the page, that I'm aware of, because it is "unconvinient". For real, the only thing that should be our focus is the notability, and Katchanovski as an established academic clearly is notable enough. Marcelus ( talk) 15:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:COI editing, for example someone creating an article about himself or a friend/collaborator, can be an argument for deletion. Someone with a potential COI who also creates a disruption (such as the IP involved at the article talk page I think) can only make it worse. Hence my comment. Just to be clear, I am talking about a potential COI only by IP accounts (such as [54]), not by anyone else. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Ok, but what it all has to do with this article? And especially this discussion? Marcelus ( talk) 17:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD fell through the cracks somehow. Leaning towards no consensus, but hesitant to close as such without relisting at least once.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep Passes as an academic, based on the number of citations. Could be considered controversial, but it is what it is. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Citations alone are not sufficient to determine academic notability. Nangaf ( talk) 04:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
What then would be satisfying? Marcelus ( talk) 21:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
There are 8 conditions listed under WP:NACADEMIC. Number of citations, per se, is not among them. Typically it means professors or academics of a similar rank. Katchanovski is a junior academic who does not even have a full-time appointment at his institution. Nangaf ( talk) 23:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:17, 13 July 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 Victory (church)#Victory Worship. This is a compromise solution that could very well be challenged. But I don't think relisting will help as there has already been good participation in this deletion discussion and the sides are well-articulated. The redirect target actually has more content than the article did. I think this is the best resolution in a discussion between those seeking to Delete the article and those who believe the article should be Kept. For those editors who are insistent that any page created by a sockpuppet should be deleted, you can take your argument to WP:RFD. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Victory Worship

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

I draftified it and it was recreated, and it's still a non-notable band. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply

That is a general policy comment rather than a vote on the notability of Victory Worship. I disagree with the proposed process as well. A messy article on something notable can be addressed with edit tags and it doesn't take too long to remove blatantly promotional prose. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply
That link isn't a "note", it's a link to a category of blocked suspected sockpuppets. It's not clear what the point of including it here is. If you suspect an editor of being a sockpuppet, SPI is thataway. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The creator of the article is a sock and the sock master is banned so it can be speedily deleted under G5. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Seriously? Only 7,500 units need sold to qualify for a Gold Record per Philippines industry criteria? It's time there is a hard look at wikipedia's music notability criteria using a gold record as a blanket qualification for notability. US/British criteria is 500,000 units. To put 7,500 on a level par with that is ridiculous. I won't weigh in on a keep or delete, but am disappointed in editors who automatically vote keep base on the gold record criteria without considering it with a critical mind. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 21:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Indeed, and as the population of the Philippines is higher than the UK population, that disparity is even more remarkable. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 22:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Philippines is a poor country, and music piracy is very rampant. Most musicians make money by touring (I suppose the same is true for almost all countries, but more so in the Philippines). Howard the Duck ( talk) 23:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - if not G5 speedy delete. This is not ready for mainspace. The certified gold is a bit of nonsense. Per WP:NMUSIC, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. The operative word is may. There is no indication of notability beyond the sale of 7,500 units. This is not presumed notability. I would suggest draftify, but as the page creator is a banned sock, that would just be backdoor deletion I think. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 22:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep The sales number seems low, but it hit a Gold record in the Philippines, seems to be notable as explained above. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Perhaps we should merge or just redirect to Victory (church) which already has an arguably better section about the band. — siro χ o 08:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I think all content on this page is already on that one, so there is nothing to merge. I agree that redirect is sensible. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 10:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    However, when we start to get into the pattern of doing anything other than deleting for articles created by puppets, it encourages them to do sock puppet, because they can count on the G5 CSD eligible getting re-direct if it fails a full "keep". To discourage promotional and PR activity, delete should be connsidered... Graywalls ( talk) 20:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    On the other hand, a redirect makes it somewhat less likely that the article is created again, and also makes it easier for any editor to revert if it is. — siro χ o 21:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    There's always delete and salt. Graywalls ( talk) 21:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    You're absolutely right, but personally, I prefer such options only when the problem is persistent, as it's less in the spirit of WP:5P3. I would hope this issue would end here, and if in a year or two a new editor comes along and are able to write a good article that meets GNG, they can. — siro χ o 21:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:G5 and redirect to Victory (church)#Victory Worship per siroxo. Page was created by indef-blocked suspected sockpuppet, and has no substantial edits by any other user, so G5 is appropriate (but since we're already here, no particular reason to speedy it IMO). On the general notability question, I don't think we need to take NMUSIC quite so rigidly as has been suggested above. Guidelines are meant to have reasonable exceptions, and the Philippine standard for gold records seems like such an exception. At the moment the church article actually does a better job of covering the band than the band article, so we will better serve our readers by consolidating coverage there until there is enough verified information to support a split. -- Visviva ( talk) 23:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:NMUSIC per above arguments, especially that it had a Gold record. SBKSPP ( talk) 03:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or, better yet, redirect. I previously wrote I wouldn't vote, but I will now mostly because the previous comment cites "above arguments," but apparently did not read them, as it was previously pointed out that a gold record in the Philippines is only 7,500 units! The gold record seems to be the majority reasoning for the keep votes as if that is unimpeachable criteria, but the guidelines specify only that it may indicate notability. Meeting the Philippine's ridiculously low threshold for a gold record is not enough, and the routine/half-promotional press coverage for this musical project all fall under the umbrella of this Mega-church's oversight and notability. Like a few other editors, I'm also troubled by the sock puppetry in it's creation. Redirect to that church's page is fine. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 13:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Victory (church)#Victory Worship per Siroxo and Visviva. - Ian Lopez @ 06:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Yes, I would go along with that. — Maile ( talk) 00:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC
RecycledPixels makes a valid point below. Deletion is fine. But I'm not sure how a redirect would work, if you just deleted the article. But nevertheless, you would need to create the Worship part in your own words, without using a redirect pointing to a creation by a banned editor. — Maile ( talk) 04:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I wasn't asked, perhaps because I'm a KEEP above, but if you want to G5 the article because it was created by a banned editor, I won't object, although it seems like pointless theater to me, but it should be clear that there would be no problem with another editor rewriting the article from scratch. The subject matter of the article, despite the article's horrible current state, meets WP:NMUSIC, and so I still oppose any AFD deletion that would result in editors saying in the future, "you can't make an article about this, it was already brought to AFD and deleted." RecycledPixels ( talk) 21:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Article has been rewritten from scratch. No need to G5. RecycledPixels ( talk) 19:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    So G5 still applies because the page creator remains the banned sock. Other deletions reasons also still pertain. The only evidence of notability here is that they shifted 7,500 units. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 20:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
G5 doesn't apply if there have been major edits by non sock editors which an admin would determine, Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Major edit does not really describe this. It has gained a sentence and lost the 4 band members. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (G5) as created by a banned user with no substantial edits by others. Also want to object to the idea that being certified gold = notability. As NMUSIC says, meeting such a criteria means it may be notable. In this case, it just means the unit sold 20,000 units. Folks in the US may be used to gold meaning half a million in sales, which are the sort of numbers likely to attract press attention. 20,000 maybe a lot for a smaller country, but doesn't necessarily translate to the kind of sourcing we're looking for. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Responding to this here because the issue has been raised multiple times, not singling you out. I think the guideline in NMUSIC is sound. It's not a policy, it's not a black-and-white line in the sand, it's a suggestion based on a long history of debates over WP's history that if an album reaches a country's gold sales mark, there's a damn good chance that there are multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject that are going to cover that. Can a failed English Google Search about a group in a country where a vast majority of the population does not speak English prove that it's not notable? I say no. And I can't be bothered to do online and hard copy searches in the 20+ languages that are spoken in the Philippines to determine whether or not it's notable. The guideline exists to save us from long, pointless debates about whether such a source exists. Just accept the presumption. Does that mean that some high school garage band will have a Wikipedia article? Of course not. They still have to meet the country's sales guidelines. And according to the nation's certifying agency, only 16 albums in the country met the gold sales mark that year, [56] so arguments that the standards are too lax fail. How many albums met gold sales standards in the United States? Hint: the RIAA article for the year is 48 pages long. [57] (including singles) So this article should be a KEEP based only on that presumption of notability outlined in the NMUSIC guideline. The G5 issue is a total strawman argument. I have taken the one short sentence of prose that the banned sockpuppeter wrote, deleted it, and turned it into three completely unrelated short sentences of prose. I also nuked the list of band members because it was unsourced. There is no prose that closely resembles what the sockpuppeter wrote. This should be closed as keep. RecycledPixels ( talk) 04:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    if an album reaches a country's gold sales mark, there's a damn good chance that there are multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject that are going to cover that - In this case we don't have any such sources after nearly 3 weeks at AfD. It seems clear at this point that they are not coming, which reaffirms the 7,500 threshhold is way too low. You anticipate that objection with: Can a failed English Google Search about a group in a country where a vast majority of the population does not speak English prove that it's not notable? but the vast majority of the population of the Philippines do speak excellent English. English is one of two official languages of the Philippines and 92% of the population speak it. There really should be English language sources for an English titled group singing primarily in English, from a Church that holds services in English in a country that is well noted for its high levels of proficiency in English. Also, as noted above, the Philippines has a larger population than the UK, and yet the UK definition for gold is 400,000 units. 7,500 is ridiculously low. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    You could be right about the language. I based my statement only on the fact that the infobox of Wikipedia's article on the Filipino language suggests that there are 28,000,000 native speakers of Filipino, whereas Philippine English's infobox suggests that there are 200,000 native speakers of that language in the country. According to that article, there are 52 million people in the country who speak it as a second language, vs. 82 million total speakers of Filipino, of a total population of 109 million according to Philippines, but I'm sure you're right about the 92%; one of those articles is probably wrong. And in case you were wondering, the UK's certifying agency, BPI, certified 132 gold albums in 2015. I'd post a link, but the website is garbage, but you can get to it from [58] and enter the appropriate filters. Compare with PARI's 16 albums in 2015. RecycledPixels ( talk) 09:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I re-read my earlier statement and I instead of saying "where a vast majority of the population does not speak English..." I should have phrased it as "where a vast majority of the population does not use English as a native language..." I apologize for the mis-statement. RecycledPixels ( talk) 09:45, 18 July 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 List of CSI: NY characters. Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Jo Danville

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

3/5 sources used in this article are blogs, a quick Google search doesn't give enough sources to prove that the character is notable enough to have a separate page. I suggest a merge and redirect to List of CSI: NY characters. Spinixster (chat!) 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. While !votes were pretty evenly split, no real rebuttal was provided to the final source analyses provided by editors advocating deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

TNT Fireworks

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

not notable according to no reliable sources and WP:NCORP. Facebook source should be deleted. Tls9-me ( talk) 08:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 03:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://corporateofficeheadquarters.org/tnt-fireworks-inc/ ? Blog source (ironically uses Wikipedia for info) No No ✘ No
https://www.tntfireworks.com/ No Own website ? ~ ✘ No
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nonprofits-forge-successful-partnerships-with-consumer-fireworks-leader-259988801.html No Source says "NEWS PROVIDED BY TNT Fireworks" at the top of the article" ? Yes ✘ No
https://www.coinbooks.org/resources/anb2021.pdf Yes Yes No Directory of companies ✘ No
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04800387 Yes Yes ? Government listing of the company ? Unknown
https://tucson.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/county-is-sued-over-its-ban-on-fireworks/article_c33b7882-4920-5b79-b340-59edcc58f1be.html Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.al.com/business/2017/06/tnt_fireworks_recalled_for_une.html Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.wtvy.com/content/news/36000-units-of-TNT-Fireworks-being-recalled--431754923.html Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.westernslopenow.com/news/local-news/tnt-fireworks-safe-and-responsible-use-campaign/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/conditions-right-for-exciting-bassmaster-classic-on-the-tennessee-river-301775154.html Yes ? No Brief name mention ✘ No
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110614007221/en/Buckhorn%C2%AE-Assists-with-Tornado-Disaster-Relief-Efforts Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
— siro χ o 02:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I agree and pretty obviously too. For example this in tucson.com about the county getting sued over its bad on fireworks has two mentions-in-passing of the company. It has zero in-depth information about the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. One of these days I'm gonna do a source table for GNG/NCORP so that we can explicitly evaluate CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. HighKing ++ 21:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Very well prepared and presented source analysis table, which gives a clear indication that that article is non-notable. I can't see any definition in the references that would indicate it was notable. Woeful sources really Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep Talk 11:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If someone here wants to take stewardship of it to avoid backdoor deletion, I think there's a promising case for draftifying here. This is an old company and there will very likely be analog sources. We just can't really guarantee NPOV without any at all. — siro χ o 11:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Can you present WP:THREE or even 2 that meet WP:SIRS? — siro χ o 20:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Raw search url results are non-rs as you can't identify what article is being talked about, so that is non-statement. If you have sources that satisfy WP:THREE then present so we can examine them. As at the moment, there is not coverage that satisfies WP:SIRS and WP:NCORP. Post something that is valid instead on non-statements. scope_creep Talk 15:39, 19 July 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 14:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Modern City Montessori Intermediate College

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

Created by single purpose editor. Only a wikimap source provided. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 01:21, 6 July 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 01:38, 13 July 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! 01:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ashish Khandal

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

Low quality sources, subject doesn't seem to meet the notability guideline. Probably also undisclosed paid editing, see page log on simplewiki as well. — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs) 01:03, 13 July 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! 00:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Dinesh Sabnis

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

Looks very promotional and not notable. The coverage is all promotional in low-quality sources, and notability is not inherited from membership in organizations. — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs) 00:56, 13 July 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. based on new sources found (which I hope find their way into the article). Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

John Hackett (musician)

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

Subject isn't particularly notable and the only sources I can find with any sort of relation to him are about his brother. 4 sources do come up relating to his band but all of them are from the same website, which I don't believe counts as significant coverage. Article only uses three sources, and only one seems barely notable. Dawnbails ( talk) 00:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. MacKenzie, Gary (2017-10-12). "John Hackett". Prog. Retrieved 2023-07-09 – via PressReader.

      The review notes: "But tonight they are showcasing John Hackett, with his prolific five-decade long career encompassing classical and full-on rock. ... Easing in gently, Hackett kicks off a varied night by playing a short duo set with collaborator Nick Fletcher on classical guitar. With Hackett playing a strange looking instrument – “It’s a vertical flute, not a plumbing tool!” – they open with the spritely yet gentle Entr’acte, by French composer Ibert, and Hackett’s own Freefall, a pastoral musical sketch evocative of wide open skies."

    2. Reijman, Alison (2022-03-13). "John Hackett in conversation". Prog. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The article notes: "With a musical career spanning almost 50 years, John Hackett is one of prog’s ‘go to’ flute players, appearing on albums by musicians such as Anthony Phillips, Nick Magnus and most recently, Ms Amy Birks. He’s collaborated on and recorded several classical albums as a solo artist, in duets or bands, including Symbiosis, and these days he records and tours with his own eponymous band, but it’s his contributions to elder brother Steve’s albums for which he’s best known."

    3. Barnes, Mike; Kendall, Jo (2023-04-14). "John Hackett Band". Prog. Retrieved 2023-07-09 – via PressReader.

      The review notes: "The scope of the music is progeclectic. Songs such as The Spyglass are melodic, multi-harmonied and Yes-like – with a creepy Big Brother vocal – others such as Theme And Rondo have, naturally for flautist/keyboard player Hackett, a classical influence. Burnt Down Trees has blues and jazz-rock at the centre and Hackett’s mellifluous playing on the Latin-influenced, bouncy instrumental Queenie And Elmo’s Perfect Day – and the Focus-tastic romp Red Hair – is balanced nicely against Fletcher’s rip-roaring prog-jazz guitar work (possibly the band’s secret weapon here)."

    4. Marsh, Steve (May 2009). "Reviews ... : CDs - John Hackett: "Prelude to Summer"". Classical Guitar. Vol. 27, no. 9. p. 43. ISSN  0950-429X. ProQuest  1433306.

      The abstract notes: " A recording of guitar duets and flute/guitar duets featuring flutist, guitarist, and composer John Hackett is reviewed (Hacktrax)."

    5. Jones, Petra (November 2006). "From Minor to Major: An Interview with John Hackett". Flute Talk. Vol. 26, no. 3. pp. 6–8, 27. ISSN  0744-6918. ProQuest  1388830.

      The abstract notes: " Flutist and composer John Hackett is profiled. Growing up in London, he began his musical career as a guitarist like his brother, who became the lead guitarist for the rock band Genesis. Seeing Ian McDonald of King Crimson inspired Hackett to try the flute. He attended Sheffield Univesity, specializing in flute performance and studying composition. After leaving school, he toured with Genesis for a few years. A 1993 neck injury left him unable to play for a year and forced him to switch to a curved headjoint on his flute. Changing his style of playing to the new type of flute was a challenge."

    6. May, Philippa (2018-09-25). "Feast of prog rock in Ewyas Harold with the John Hackett Band". Hereford Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The article notes: "The John Hackett Band come to Ewyas Harold Memorial Hall for a night of prog rock on Saturday, September 29. Progressive rock flute player, guitarist, keyboard player and singer John is best known for his work with his brother Steve Hackett, the former Genesis guitarist. Since 1975 he has recorded and toured with Steve in Europe, USA and Japan alongside a career as a solo flautist and session player. The band is full of exceptional players who weave beautiful themes from atmospheric soundscapes to funk and rock."

    7. Bryan, Kevin (2018-01-16). "CD reviews : Blue Rose Code, John Hackett Band, Dreamboats & Petticoats, Sandro Ivo Bartoli". Messenger Newspapers. Newsquest. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The review notes: "John Hackett Band,"We Are Not Alone" (Esoteric / Cherry Red)- The multi-talented Mr.Hackett is probably best known for his flute wielding exploits with brother Steve during the late seventies and early eighties but he's now firmly established as a band leader in his own right, and "We Are Not Alone" serves up a veritable feast of free flowing prog rock for your listening pleasure. The 2 CD set is divided equally between live and studio recordings, with classical guitarist Nick Fletcher's contributions also deserving a mention in dispatches as Hackett and his gifted cohorts unveil freshly minted gems such as "Take Control," "Never Gonna Make A Dime" and the instrumental "Blue Skies of Marazion.""

    8. Bryan, Kevin (2020-12-17). "Music reviews". Messenger Newspapers. Newsquest. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The review notes: "John Hackett,"The Piper Plays His Tune" (Hacktrax)- This beguiling home produced offering provides an eloquent vehicle for the consumate artistry of the multi-talented John Hackett, whose instantly identifiable flute sound has graced many of his elder brother Steve's critically acclaimed prog-rock projects since the mid seventies. "The Piper Plays His Tune" captures John at his most melodic and accessible as he indulges his lifelong passion for the delights of good old fashioned pop music via skilfully executed solo ditties such as "Broken Glass," Julia" and the reflective "Too Late For Dreamers.""

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

    Cunard ( talk) 10:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I personally wouldn't consider this significant coverage; the first three sources you've provided come from the same magazine, the two ProQuest ones don't appear to be reliable, source #6 is of a local newspaper, and the two last sources provided come from the same newspaper and again appear to be local. I don't really see merit in these being "reliable sources" nor do I see it to be significant coverage enough for this person to require an article. Dawnbails ( talk) 17:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
From this book, "Flute Talk magazine is an informative resource and a fun read for flutists of all ages and playing levels. It includes interviews with accomplished flutists, features on various performance styles, a column on piccolo playing, performance guides for flute repertoire, masterclass and event listings, and much more. Check out the Web site for more information: www.flutetalkmagazine.com." This book verifies that Kathleen Goll-Wilson served as editor of Flute Talk. I consider Flute Talk to be a reliable source about music-related topics.

This book verifies that since 1982, Colin Cooper has been features editor of Classical Guitar. I consider Classical Guitar to be a reliable source about music-related topics.

Wikipedia:Notability (people) does not exclude local sources from establishing notability. If editors would like to exclude local sources from establishing notability, they need to achieve consensus to change the guideline.

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." It is clear that after combining the biographical coverage in all these independent sources, there is enough coverage to establish notability.

Cunard ( talk) 01:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review newly located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

MY Titanic

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

Not notable; I can't even find a picture of this ship. Ironmatic1 ( talk) 00:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as large number of sources cited shows notability.
Godtres ( talk) 14:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Very Strong Keep There are thousands of ship articles without pictures. Just because someone hasn't released a photograph under a Wikipedia compatible licence does not mean that the ship is not notable. This has to be the worst reason to nominate an article for deletion ever. Mjroots ( talk) 03:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - not being able to find a photo of the ship is not a reason to nominate it for deletion. Next time, go to the articles talk page and place the {{photo requested}} tag at the top of the page, directly beneath any WikiProject tags. As for the notability, this article seems to check out and it is sourced strongly and accordingly.
4theloveofallthings ( talk) 4theloveofallthings ( talk) 00:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_July_13&oldid=1166488267"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE