Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 18 November 20 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Pleasant Hill, Bienville Parish, Louisiana

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

There is still a "Pleasant Hill Church" here, but that's all that appears in older topos. Somewhere around 1980 someone decided the spot needed to be labelled as a town, in spite of a lack of other buildings other than what turn out to be two very decrepit barns. Again, I'm not convinced this was a real settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 23:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I went to the Bienville Parish Assessor's Office's GIS page. Using their "S-T-R" (Section-Township-Range) search option, I accessed the GIS viewer for section 10, Township T17N, Range R7W in which "Pleasant Hill, Bienville Parish, Louisiana" lies. The property lines and property owners shown are those of typical farm and timberland and there is a complete absence of the small commercial and residencal plots that would be associated with a hamlet, village, settlement etc. There is a complete absence of the roads, buildings, and other infrastricture that would be associated with a small settlement. The infrastructure seen are logging and access roads and numerous oil and gas well pads. There is clearly no settlement of any type associated with the Pleasant Hill CME Church. Paul H. ( talk) 02:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The burden should be on the editor creating articles like this one to demonstrates that the subject meets WP:GEOLAND and general notability before it can posted instead shifting the burden to other editors to determine either that it does or not or even is completely imaginary. Paul H. ( talk) 02:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Kyle Kumaran

Kyle Kumaran (  | talk | history | 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:NOTABILITY. Driver has started less than 10 races in entry-level motorsport with no notable results. MSportWiki ( talk) 23:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 31
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 00:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments Source
Meets SIGCOV 1. "Kyle Kumaran wins Sr National Rotax Karting title, Peregrine Racing claim overall honours". The Times of India. PTI. 29 November 2021. Retrieved 10 October 2022.
404 2. ^ Dutta, Debopam; Kundu, Poulomi (31 December 2021). "Kyle Kumaran- the 'speed junky' making India proud on international racing circuit".
Dup ref 1 3. ^ "Kyle Kumaran wins the senior title in National Karting Championship Rotax Max". thebridge.in. 29 November 2021.
Meets SIGCOV 4. ^ Datla, Anand (15 July 2022). "The F1 dream: motorsport is seeing revived interest in India, but funds and facilities are hard to come by". The Hindu – via www.thehindu.com.
Mention 5. ^ "Wade and Hannam excel at UAE Rotax Max Challenge 7th round". www.gulftoday.ae.
Based on interview 6. ^ "Red-hot Kyle Kumaran reigns supreme in Novice Cup".
From DR
Meets SIGCOV https://www.firstpost.com/sports/kyle-kumaran-steals-show-with-two-wins-vineeth-takes-championship-lead-in-jk-tyre-novice-cup-category-11826711.html
Dup ref 1 https://www.indiatoday.in/auto/latest-auto-news/story/2021-fmsci-national-karting-championship-kyle-kumaran-wins-senior-title-peregrine-racing-claim-overall-honours-1882192-2021-11-29
Mention in results article https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/kumaran-triumphs/articleshow/87992828.cms
No mention https://www.autocarindia.com/motor-sports-news/f1-2023-calendar-revealed-with-record-24-races-425799
I did not look for additional sources beyond the THREE above, and yes this is a weak keep, but based partially on the probability that the THREE above will have more added in the future. Agree there was no prev closure error.  //  Timothy ::  talk  22:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Pine Grove, Bienville Parish, Louisiana

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

So far GNIS seems to be doing better in Louisiana than in some other areas, but here we have an entry copied from a book on post offices. There is a Pine Grove Church shown on older maps, and its cemetery shows up on the most recent maps, but there's no sign of a settlement, and the label wanders around considerably before disappearing, suggesting that they didn't real know where to put it. I don't think this is a real settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 23:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Nothing found on this location; there are a few houses in the general area but geotag locates to a forest. Existence of a post office does not establish notability as rural post offices in the United States were often private homes or farms, any place where mail could be dropped off. Not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 00:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Bienville Parish Resources and Facilities. Baton Rouge: Louisiana Department of Public Works. Planning Division. 1952. p. 14. Pine Grove Community, near Saline, settled in the 1830's by Thomas Zilks, had a school for many years. The same building served as a church. Coushatta and Monroe were nearest places that roads permitted them to trade with in earliest days. Many families reside in this excellent farming community, today.

    Uncle G ( talk) 09:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Not notable, not even a settlement. By the way, just before I retired, I spent time in Bienville Parish geological mapping with another geologist. While studying the area of the Bienville salt dome, we used the Pine Grove Church at the coordinates given for "Pine Grove, Bienville Parish, Louisiana" as a landmark to cross-check our GPS in morning before starting work. The Pine Grove Church is still alive, well, and active. However, it is only one of many such churches unassociated with a hamlet, town, or other organized settlement. The community consists of residences dispersed throughout the area along local roads. Paul H. ( talk) 01:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep by WP:GEOLAND show by Uncle G's reference above बिनोद थारू ( talk) 02:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Change to Delete based on Paul H. comment बिनोद थारू ( talk) 02:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Delete arguments in this discussion have both a comfortable numerical majority and a stronger grounding in policy. signed, Rosguill talk 19:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Christian W. Staudinger

Christian W. Staudinger (  | talk | history | 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 was a rough translation by Andrea014 from the same article on the German Wikipedia. It was successfully deleted from German Wikipedia in 2019 for failing to meet the notability requirements and relying on self published sources. Because there is a lack of reliable secondary sources discussing the artist, we defer to WP:ARTIST for notability requirements, and he doesn't meet them. The article is is promotional. Andrea014 also uploaded high quality versions of the artist's artwork onto Wikimedia commons to replace previous versions posted by the creator of the now deleted German article. Looks like WP:COI.

Because of a lack of coverage in any reliable secondary sources, we defer to WP:ARTIST:

  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors ☒N
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique ☒N
  • The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) ☒N
  • The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. ☒N

Zenomonoz ( talk) 23:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry for my poor english!
This nomination is nothing but an act of revenge. Zenomonoz had insulted me in the deWP, I reported this to the administrators, who yesterday banned him from the deWP infinit.
I find it tragic that the deletion request in the deWP also came from a person who wanted revenge - not on me but on the artist who was persecuted in the GDR and who in real life found out the applicant was a Stasi employee. After telling him this, the deletion request was made. The request came from an IP in Jena and I'm sure I know who that was. If a deletion request here is made purely out of revenge, that seems to me to be a disgrace.
I do not want to say more.-- Andrea014 ( talk) 06:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Stay on topic. See WP:AFDEQ. The deletion nomination is due to notability and citations. German Wikipedia has different guidelines; I was blocked for misattributing a comment to you (which I retracted when I was aware). That is irrelevant here. I took a look at your english articles prior to that, because you linked to the deletion on your userpage. You’re not providing any rationale for keeping the article. Zenomonoz ( talk) 07:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The conflict with you startet on 1. November! And the reason for blocking you in deWP is different as anybody can see. -- Andrea014 ( talk) 07:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
This is a WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR argument. I nominated the article because it relies on self published sources and is missing reliable independent/secondary sources. German Wiki came to the same conclusion. Zenomonoz ( talk) 08:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Do not start the same here as in deWP! I asked for keeping off of my talkpage and you edited again. I do no "assume" bad faith, there is... Everything is to find in deWP. My work in enWP will end with this person. Too much poison in his communication. -- Andrea014 ( talk) 08:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC) (addition what I forgot -- Andrea014 ( talk) 08:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)) reply
  • As I stop contributing to the enWP: please have a look to what this person does to the articles I contributed. -- Andrea014 ( talk) 09:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    He now is removing whatever he wants. Andrea014 ( talk) 04:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Saw this at ANI and it caught my interest. I looked through the refs for this article and found major problems. Refs 9, 10, and 14 are images of government documents posted to the subject's website. Refs 15 and 35 are unclear what they're supposed to be supporting. 26, 27, 28, 43, and 44 are lists or database entries with no actual coverage. All of the rest are either links to Staudinger's own site or don't appear to mention him at all. I was reluctant to say "Delete" because I can't shake the feeling that he may be notable and the language barrier is just making it harder to find sources, but in its current state the article fails to demonstrate notability and huge portions of it are either unsourced or functionally so. Squeakachu ( talk) 20:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Also here from AN/I. I found the deleted de.wikipedia article archived at Wayback (and a similar German article at Everybodywiki) and used references cited there to supplement my own search. I agree with the nominator that he does not appear to meet the notability standard for artists. I also find insufficient evidence of notability under WP:GNG.There is interview-based coverage from 2013 and 2014 of his experiences fleeing East Germany and how it is reflected in his art, including a Bulgarian article that was mentioned in the text of the German article. Other coverage is mere mentions, and the majority of the article can only be sourced to his own website, m-lk.de (although there are several statements on that site about things having vanished without trace including not having Wikipedia articles when I did in fact find Wikipedia articles to link). I rewrote the article removing unsourced content (and the largely irrelevant material about his parents' and grandparents' politics) in case it is kept, because some of it was a BLP violation, and to enable focusing on his claims of notability. Yngvadottir ( talk) 11:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the subject is a sourced author, filmmaker, painter, sculptor, and performance artist who has shown in many exhibitions and successfully escaped from East Germany. Active in these many areas of expertise and experience, the interviews and the rewrite by Yngvadottir using page sources rounds up to his being more than just an artist. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, although the artist wants to be deleted as he told me.
This is an article not only about an artist, but also about a contemporary witness to events in GDR and Bulgaria before the fall of the Inner German border, a person having been imprisoned in GDR after failing Republikflucht and tortured in Bulgaria with agreement of GDR. In 2005 he was invited as a contemporary witness by Hildigund Neubert. There was a contemporary witness interview with the historian and journalist Jochen Voit, current director of the Memorial and Education Centre Andreasstraße ( here).
His life story was subject of both a report on German television (material about this you will find here, open "Fakt-MDR 2008") and an award-winning book by Kapka Kassabova, which has been published in english and german ( Kapka Kassabova: Border: A Journey to the Edge of Europe, ISBN: 9781783782147). That the figure of Felix in this book is the person of Staudinger can be heared in a German audio at Bruno Kreisky Forum here.
Various newspapers in Germany and one in Bulgaria reported on staudinger (you will find copys on his website, see link above).
From Oktober 2014 to Januar 2015 he was part of an exhibition in his former prison and now the Memorial Andreasstraße, see under 03. Oktober 2014.
He published three historical interesting videos on YT: he succeeded in winning Albert Hofmann, a very shy person, for an interview, made a video about the first free elections in Waltershausen/GDR with a scene that makes the election invalid (in germany it is forbidden to film the opening of ballot boxes, but the people and the artist did not know), and made an interview with a person having knowledge about skydiving in GDR.
He was one of about 500 participants in the competition and exhibition for the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe.
His exhibition about Adolf Hitler took place under police protection.
Andrea014 ( talk) 07:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Andrea014, please clarify. Does Staudinger want this article deleted? That would surprise me, since this page is still listed in the sidebar of his page about himself on the English version of his website. But if so, it is relevant to this discussion; en.wikipedia has a policy of deleting biographies of marginally notable living people when they request it. Yngvadottir ( talk) 02:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you for asking. You are right. And no, he doesn't really want the article to be deleted. He was hurt by the deletion request and it was just an initial angry reaction. After the deletion request in the German Wikipedia he wanted to destroy his works and didn't do it after all. Andrea014 ( talk) 04:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
He was tortured when he was 19. The problem with these extremely traumatized people is that the wounds never really heal. With nineteen he was afraid they would kill him and he experiences an article deletion as being erased. I am sure he will calm down again. Andrea014 ( talk) 04:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no RS for the biographical information presented in the article. I am not finding evidence of significant coverage, or exhibitions or collections. Fails WP:ARTIST. No reliable sourcing for other criteria for inclusion. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 18:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm not finding reliable sources on this artist. The above commentary about the artist being "a contemporary witness to events," having "published three historical interesting videos on YT (YouTube?)" and "was one of about 500 participants in the competition" do not provide significant coverage on this topic. Elspea756 ( talk) 22:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. A request at the last relist asked for more views on drafting, but none were given. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Dead Hendrix

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Started in 2020 and I see no charted music, albums release on major record labels, or significant coverage. There is a good article in The Source but one article is not enough to establish notability. CNMall41 ( talk) 08:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Canada. CNMall41 ( talk) 08:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - This is a reluctant vote because the rapper surely has an overactive hype team swamping the internet with promotional junk like how he's "taking over" (e.g. [2]). But he has gotten some real notice from reliable magazines, including The Source (already cited), which contrary to the nominator's statement, is not the only one out there and is instead just the only one currently in the article. Here are some more appearances in the reliable or semi-reliable music media: [3], [4]; while the collab with Levi Zadoff has gotten a fair amount of attention: [5], [6], [7], [8]. It's quite early in his career and coverage is limited to just a couple of releases, but he may have enough for a stub article here under a lenient reading of WP:SIGCOV. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The first two sources you link to are clearly marked as being written by a publicist. The rest is about a collab and not in-depth about the subject of this page. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 06:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Read the vote more carefully. I said the first link was unreliable hype, and described the second as "semi-reliable" and it is now dead regardless. I don't think you're correct about the collab-related sources not covering Dead Hendrix, but my vote is a reluctant "Weak Keep" anyway. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I did read what you wrote carefully. The problem is that I did not state clearly what I meant and apologize for such. I was referring to the first two sources that you stated were reliable (one of which you stated semi-reliable). Both links are working and both were written by publicists. Hope that clarifies.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Can you point out the coverage that you feel shows notability per either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN?-- CNMall41 ( talk) 05:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The source article is certainly good, but the collab articles (esp. 5, 6, 7) look convincing, as they are non-trivial, more than Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates. But, if needed we can send back to draft, as coverage can indeed be further developed overtime. NotAGenious ( talk) 17:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 10:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Draftify as was the case until recently. This is no reflection on NotAGenious, as there is slim credibility in some of the sources provided, however I concur with concerns around the origin of some of the source material. I am also not seeing how this is passing WP:MUSICBIO at present. Sending back to draft not only affords a little more time to see if stronger references surface, but also respects the weak keeps as the article isn't deleted outright. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Shahidayit-e Shandak

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. It's a different excel file now but still not notable. Hongsy ( talk) 14:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Reference #1 is the official Census of Iran. If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#11 in this case), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @ Hongsy, is Ganj Konar listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.
Thanks,
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 17:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Whilst simply being an abadi does not give a pass of WP:GEOLAND, in this case the population is large enough that the abadi should have been converted into a proper village. The issue is that even if this happened, it may not have this name (the name apparently translates as "You are martyred" according to Google Translate, though I wouldn't necessarily read too much into this). Looking at the table, it actually does not include an exact match for this village-name, but line 1390 includes 'شهيدايت شندك which I understand is similar in sound/meaning and has the same number of people/families as in the article. Personally I'd lean towards just redirecting this to Gowhar Kuh Rural District per WP:NOPAGE since there might at some point actually be a real article about a real village here. FOARP ( talk) 10:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 17:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. It is a notable place (WP:GEOLAND)
बिनोद थारू ( talk) 02:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 11:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

George Baugh Allen

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

Nothing much on the page which shows notability, does not appear to be much else which could be added. WP:NOTGENEALOGY JMWt ( talk) 09:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, England, and Wales. JMWt ( talk) 09:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG, AUTHOR and criteria 3 of ANYBIO. Significant coverage in books and periodical articles. There are obituaries/biographies/profiles. Biography in Boase's Modern English Biography: [10]. In particular, there is an obituary in the Illustrated London News of 26 November 1898, p 806. Multiple book reviews include, in particular: [11] [12] [13] [14]. He was considered to be one of (and the last of) the greatest special pleaders ever. (A search for "last of the great special pleaders" in Google Books brings up various publications for this). Consider for example "still for some forty years no name has more often appeared in the records of common law actions than that of this famous Special Pleader": [15]. He was was involved in the drafting of the law that created the rules and forms of pleading used in the courts, and was the co-author of a standard work on the subject. The article does not violate NOTGENEALOGY, as the article already includes details of his career as a lawyer and government official, which is part of what he is notable for. James500 ( talk) 17:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • There are a lot of obituaries in 1898, ranging from the London Gazette through professional journals to The Elizabethan, magazine of Westminster School. I cannot read any except the last one, and it actually says less than this article does, because it's only interested in this person's school and university qualifications. The ODNB matches turn out to be a mention in a relative's biography. 3 out of James500's 4 books reviews are substantial, though, and indicate scope for expansion. The fourth is 3 sentences. Uncle G ( talk) 04:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    • A question: can we use book reviews as a sign of notability for the author? Unless they substantially cover the author - rather than the book - how can they be considered a RS for notability here? JMWt ( talk) 09:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
      • The idea is that a biographical article is about someone's life and works. So as long as the sources are suitably good, journal reviews by fellow experts being preferable (although they do have a tendency to talk about themselves rather than what they are reviewing, sometimes), one can fill out a biography with verifiable reliably sourced content about the person's works. Taking the The Law Magazine and Review review pointed to, for example: This tells us what's discussed in the book, and it's not some entertainment magazine. Its editor is Thomas Pitt Taswell-Langmead. I could probably get a moderately sized paragraph out of that if I were writing. Uncle G ( talk) 10:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Leerom Segal

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

Most of the sources for Segal are either self published/unreliable/press releases or otherwise affiliated. 40 under 40 awards are generally pretty lackluster in establishing notability because many, many orgs and "magazines" give these out, so they aren't suitable on their own. Before gutting it, it was just straight up PR gibberish as well. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I did. It's a businessman with a career slightly in the public eye. There is space between that and encyclopedic notability. gidonb ( talk) 18:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors please review newly located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Even with the new sources, it's still !delete for me. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment if more sources can be brought up that are not just self publishing then it shouldn't warrant deletion. However if this is not met then perhaps deletion is indeed warranted. On the whole I'm learning more towards Delete. If proper sources are brought and notability better proved then I'll switch to Keep. Homerethegreat ( talk) 12:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 10:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

University of Belgrade Faculty of Civil Engineering

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

Subject fails W:NCORP and GNG. Efforts to restore redirect have failed and redirects are costly. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Southern Pacific 4404

Southern Pacific 4404 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost all of the sourcing here is non-independent. Feather River Rail Society is the operator of the Western Pacific Railroad Museum, which formerly held the locomotive in its collection. A bill of sale is a primary source which also does not contribute to notability. The Diesel Era source is not enough to meet GNG. This should at best exist as a redirect to the museum. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: It’s obviously notable but very underrated 27.33.233.138 ( talk) 10:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC) — 27.33.233.138 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Originalism. ✗ plicit 23:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Original meaning

Original meaning (  | talk | history | 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 references; covered at Originalism GnocchiFan ( talk) 22:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Jullien Ramirez

Jullien Ramirez (  | talk | history | 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 Joeykai ( talk) 22:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

 I'm not sure: I think that this would rest on whether the references to [ [16]] suggest presumed notability... I don't see any other inherent notability issued on this article. AriTheHorse 01:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Charcoal feather ( talk) 21:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

J-Popcon

J-Popcon (  | talk | history | 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 article that is not backed up by any sources. Also fails WP:GNG. Proposing Delete. Powerplay44 ( talk) 21:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

no Disagree, I've been able to find some seemingly independent sources to back up some of the article. Moreover, this seems to be a pretty major event and this article significantly benefits readers in my opinion. AriTheHorse 01:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Potential sources I could find: I can't speak Danish, but there could be enough sources to justify a keep vote.
  1. Non-paywall - The Copenhagen Post: Turning Japanese, we really think so! https://cphpost.dk/2017-04-16/things-to-do/turning-japanase-we-really-think-so/
  2. The Copenhagen Post: About Town: Going Japanese and we like it! https://cphpost.dk/2018-05-19/general/about-town-going-japanese-and-we-like-it/
  3. Ekstra Bladet: Letpåklædte kattekvinder indtog Øksnehallen - https://ekstrabladet.dk/forbrug/Teknologi/article4685782.ece
  4. Ekstra Bladet: 'Sensation' er for amatører! https://ekstrabladet.dk/forbrug/Teknologi/article4131694.ece
  1. Paywall - Mangafest: Derfor går de unge rundt med blåt hår og ninjakostumer i weekenden Politiken: https://politiken.dk/ibyen/byliv/art5914373/Derfor-g%C3%A5r-de-unge-rundt-med-bl%C3%A5t-h%C3%A5r-og-ninjakostumer-i-weekenden
  2. Politiken: Udklædt som skolepige: »Folk forstår ikke, hvad det er, vi har gang i«  https://politiken.dk/kultur/art5508816/Udkl%C3%A6dt-som-skolepige-%C2%BBFolk-forst%C3%A5r-ikke-hvad-det-er-vi-har-gang-i%C2%AB
  3. Politiken: 2000 manganørder mødes til Japan-messe https://politiken.dk/kultur/art5706890/2000-mangan%C3%B8rder-m%C3%B8des-til-Japan-messe Esw01407 ( talk) 00:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Stradr

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

Promotional article yvanyblog (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Simon Says (band)

Simon Says (band) (  | talk | history | 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 WP:GARAGE band with only user-generated websites ( AllMusic) used as a source. Tryin to make a change :-/ 21:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Faruk Buljubašić

Faruk Buljubašić (  | talk | history | 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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 20:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 04:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Steve Cash (Youtuber, Musician)

AfDs for this article:
Steve Cash (Youtuber, 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)

Not a notable YouTuber or musician. Fails WP:GNG with not enough significant, in-depth, secondary source coverage. Different title needed if kept as well, but I believe should be deleted. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 20:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Liliana Barba

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

She exists and has had some success. Not enough to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn ( talk) 20:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Iain MacKintosh

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

Had some success, but doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 20:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Ian Cottage

Ian Cottage (  | talk | history | 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 subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NDIRECTOR. Neither of the sources in the article meet the threshold for notability. The article itself has been tagged with {{ BLP sources}} since October 2012.

I've attempted to search for reliable sources on the director and his works, and while I can confirm the works exist, I've not been able to find any reviews of them nor of his work more generally. The closest I was able to find was a potential interview in a now defunct publication (Boolean Flix) that is now offline and not archived anywhere.

Finally, someone claiming to be the article subject attempted to nominate this for deletion back in June. While I can't verify if this editor is the article subject, if they are then it seems as though WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE would apply in this circumstance. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Holley Performance Products where it's already covered, rendering a merger unnecessary Star Mississippi 03:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Holley Motor Car

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

Nothing on the page appears to be verified WP:V and there does not appear to be enough RS to indicate notability standards are met JMWt ( talk) 19:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Retain as there are independent sources about the article subject, though it was originally poorly written. I'm going to rewrite it within the next few days. AriTheHorse 19:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Though you could possibly merge it with Holley Performance Products AriTheHorse 20:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm disagreeing with myself. All of the relevant contents of this article, except for a small description of their first car, is contained within Holley Performance Products. Agree that this one should be deleted. AriTheHorse 03:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
AriTheHorse, if you no longer hold an opinion that you've bolded, then please strike it out like this. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the tip!, will do. AriTheHorse 05:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Chikondi Gondwe

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

The subject, a Malawian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was passing mentions in squad lists ( 1, 2) and match reports ( 1, 2). JTtheOG ( talk) 19:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Ali Akbarpour

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

Fails notability, this page has been deleted once as Ali Akbarpour (athlete), he won some medals but I don't think they are notable enough. also you can see lots of medals for him in the medal table template all of them listed in 2019 which can't be right! I checked one of his achievements and he won a medal in "World Masters Championships" (competition for older guys) which is a complete different than a World Championship but the page creator failed to mention that (most probably intentionally) Sports2021 ( talk) 18:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Non-notable BJJ championships. Lethweimaster ( talk)
  • Delete He's definitely had success in JJIF tournaments. However, his world title came in a masters (older) division with only 4 competitors [19], which is not enough to show WP notability. I've been going through the many references given, but they seem to be simply reporting results of the Iranian national team. If someone can show there is significant independent coverage I'd be happy to vote to keep this article. Papaursa ( talk) 19:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ whether to keep or merge and none is likely to emerge out of this discussion given the changing facts of his employment. As there is no scenario in which this is going to be deleted, a merger discussion can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 20:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI

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

Violates WP:NOTNEWS and does not meet WP:NEVENT. BangJan1999 18:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Just note that the very acknowledgement this is a "developing situation" is precisely why WP:NOTNEWS applies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site (regarless of how well-sourced). -- ZimZalaBim talk 22:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I do not get your argument, the {{ current event}} template exists for a reason. Aaron Liu ( talk) 23:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
And that template is best used on an existing article with lasting notability, but happens to have a developing event occuring related to it at the moment. -- ZimZalaBim talk 23:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
As long as an article is created it exists, and the template is most often used on new articles. In fact, two out of three of its current transclusions are new articles. Aaron Liu ( talk) 00:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
You're correct that Wikipedia is not a news site. The page isn't developed as a news source. The page contain a timeline of developing situation at "$80 billion" company and firing of its CEO – NirvanaToday t@lk 21:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Articles are not real estate; we are not making comparables whether one should exist based on the existence—or lack thereof—of another. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge to OpenAI and Sam Altman as above. Obviously both OpenAI and Altman are significant players in the tech space, especially given the involvement of others like Microsoft, so the decision to remove him will have wide-reaching implications; however, I believe much of those implications in turn stem from the implications on Altman and OpenAI, and those should (at least at the moment) be merged into those respective articles. (Separate comment: The WP:FULL protection on Altman's page definitely complicates the matter, and I hope that the situation with that page can be resolved quickly without needing to keep that protection level for as long a time as it's been set.) Andrew11374265 ( talk) 17:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
To the contrary, Altman's removal is unheard of and its consequences are still continuing. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
(1) No such words in the listed source, and (2) we disregard opinion pieces anyway. — kashmīrī  TALK 16:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
How would you analyze an impact outside of an opinion piece? While the piece does say the exact opposite of unheard of, it also claims the impact will be great Aaron Liu ( talk) 16:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
My opinion, in turn, is that the impact will be negligible, as I believe that several dozen implementations of AI will be on the market in three years from now, the scene will grow exponentially, and nobody will care about internal staff management problems in one of their developers of years ago. As you can guess, my crystal ball has precisely the same value as Peter Coy's crystal ball. — kashmīrī  TALK 17:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
To some extent, we have no choice but to crystal-ball for recent events nominated shortly after creation. So long as 1) we definitely want to keep some events (e.g. an earthquake killing thousands); 2) we definitely want to delete some events despite meeting GNG (e.g. an individual game between two sports teams during the regular season with nothing special happening); and 3) there is no objective standard for how much an event needs to go beyond GNG to qualify for a standalone article: we have to draw the line somewhere, and that somewhere can only be determined through guesswork and subjective evaluations of impact. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge into OpenAI per WP:NOPAGE. An ousting of a CEO does not necessitate a separate article, regardless of the news reporting. Natg 19 ( talk) 02:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge into OpenAI, at least for now. It will probably be notable enough to qualify as an event in the future in all likelihood, especially of OpenAI implodes because of it, but until those major knock-on effects actually happen it can't be it's own article just yet. And, as of now there are still rumors that Sam will just join back with the company and make this all a blip. G5bestcfb ( talk) 04:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge As it appears this event has concluded, the information on this event will be able to be summarised into the main OpenAI article Mr vili ( talk) 06:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The reinstatement of Altman does not assume a conclusion to sourcing or information, and there is still plenty of information that has yet to be included in this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak merge to OpenAI. Keep redirect and categories. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge - With Altman now reinstated this 5 day incident isn't notable enough for a dedicated article. The background section overlaps existing pages, aftermath is largely obsolete, and reactions are now less notable. If not merged this will likely morph into an article about the resulting board shakeup as news coverage shifts focus. Jamedeus ( talk) 07:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Actually we do: Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident. Natg 19 ( talk) 19:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - Per @ Artem S. Tashkinov PrecariousWorlds ( talk) 12:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into OpenAI and Sam Altman per all above. At least currently a WP:RECENTISM. Brandmeister talk 15:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Pretty much just a investors dispute. This really only merits maybe a two sentence mention in Altman and OpenAI's articles. DarkSide830 ( talk) 16:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    It definitely warrants way more than two sentences with the Microsoft danger and almost all employees nearly resigning. Aaron Liu ( talk) 16:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Eh, maybe, but that's the sort of fluff CYRSTAL-ish stuff that we don't exactly need. Altman never became a Microsoft employee and those employees didn't in fact resign. Personally, I think this is a complete nothing-burger as it appears now. Altman is still the CEO and we can't deduce if the board composition changing will have any real impacts. DarkSide830 ( talk) 03:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    The US almost defaulting wasn't a nothing-burger either Aaron Liu ( talk) 15:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per WP:NOPAGE, which aptly notes that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; it was a moment when Altman was removed from OpenAI's leadership for what appears to have been less then a week, and employee reaction was notable. But Altman's been reinstated, and it may well be better to simply cover this in the history section of Open AI, and/or in a new section on the company's unique corporate governance structure. But I don't see a need for a standalone article at this time, particularly when context on the broader corporate pages would help readers better understand this incident. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 21:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Re your assertion that "this as among the most consequential battles in history", please consdsier WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. This sums up much of the arguments here for keeping this article, and it is completely against the nature of an encyclopedia. -- ZimZalaBim talk 14:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I'd say there are two camps. 1 is "very significant", which includes this !vote; 2 is "notable already and too long to merge". Aaron Liu ( talk) 14:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
It must have been an oversight that you have missed the largest camp by !vote numbers: those Wikipedians who believe that this article runs afoul of several Wikipedia policies and who have therefore advocated for a merge. — kashmīrī  TALK 20:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Two camps for the support side, if that somehow wasn't obvious enough. ZimZalaBim said This sums up much of the arguments here for keeping this article. Aaron Liu ( talk) 20:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
To compare this boardroom scuffle to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is an absurd hyperbole - a classic example of the small reference pools and narrow frames of reference that often trouble this site. But even if it somehow proved to be so in the future - you can't demonstrate that right now. That's what WP:CRYSTAL is about. It's not reasonable to argue that we should preserve this extremely specific treatment of the topic because it might one day be of earth-shattering importance is silly. Maybe this event brings about - or prevents - some unthinkable far-future robo-basilisk empire, but we can't know that. We can only go with the situation as it is now, and as I said above - we simply would not be doing this for a similar contretemps at many other larger corporations with much wider markets. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 09:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep at least for now. Major and complicated event best covered in one article rather than as an indigestible fork to two other articles. Ultimately, it might become a section to another article but for now we should keep it. HouseOfChange ( talk) 21:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎Keep. Eluchil404 ( talk) 01:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)( non-admin closure) reply

Cultural nationalism

Cultural nationalism (  | talk | history | 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 (possibly irreconcilable) verifiability and notability problems. The text is largely unsourced and it isn’t at all clear what it’s even supposed to be talking about. I have tagged in the past, but it appears the literature on a phenomenon known as “cultural nationalism” is incredibly vague in what it’s even attempting to define. John Hutchinson appears to be one of the only scholars to engage the term in and of itself (and Kai Nielsen), but does one (or two) scholars’ conceptualisations really meet our notability criteria? My feeling is what he has to say can go in Nationalism. Yr Enw ( talk) 17:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I would like to see this article remain and be improved. It can be a helpful addition to the article in the German-language Wikipedia because the term Kulturnation is an important and well-documented historical concept and is still used and discussed today in Germany.-- Baekemm ( talk) 18:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
That raises an interesting point as to whether article translations can (sometimes) constitute different phenomenons? I’m not saying that’s an argument for or against deletion of this one, but a sidepoint Yr Enw ( talk) 18:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article is underdeveloped, but a quick search shows 48,000 books which use the term. Many of the books use the term as part of chapter titles ie. in-depth. We are only waiting for someone to improve the article. Based on the very wide usage, the term is notable. It may have differing POVs about its meaning, but multiple POVs is how Wikipedia works. Just quickly browsing those sources here is one that says
Moving beyond the cultural nationalist period has not been easy, and despite the many civil rights glories associated with the 1960s and 1970s, the fact that a new cultural logic has slowly made its way into our daily lives makes some matters (urbanization, immigration, and education) ever more pressing. Even as a critique of cultural nationalism began to emerge following its heyday in the 1960s, the limitations of cultural nationalism as a public social discourse encountered resistance from women and men alike. [20]
This is good info, we now know when it had a "heyday", it's no longer in fashion, the context of use "civil rights" era etc.. All this could be incorporated. And that's the first source I randomly picked from the 48,000. -- Green C 18:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I largely agree with everything GreenC had to say, the term definitely has wide usage. Through just doing a preliminary search on google scholar, I see a lot of research using the concept as a guiding point for their research, including research from just the past year or two. When looking at articles published since 2022 that were on google scholar, 5000 used the term cultural nationalism. Obviously, this is just a preliminary search but the fact that it is still being used in research adds to the reasons it should be kept as an article in my opinion. Sillypilled ( talk) 04:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The term, like many others in sociology, is indeed ambiguous, as the nom claims. That would make expanding this article more challenging, but not a reason to delete it. Ample references and frequent usage establish notability. Owen× ☎ 19:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ by Kuru as WP:CSD#G5. ✗ plicit 13:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Rajveer Deol

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Only in september did Deol make his debut. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 17:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to Morrison (disambiguation). RL0919 ( talk) 17:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

List of organisations with Morrison in their name

List of organisations with Morrison in their name (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
List of places with Morrison in their name (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These fail WP:PTM, anything known as "Morrison" can and should be listed at Morrison (disambiguation). -- Tavix ( talk) 16:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗ plicit 23:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Tynedale FM

Tynedale FM (  | talk | history | 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 cites no sources and has been tagged as having no sources since 2009. A WP:BEFORE search brings up only trivial mentions of the station in local blogs of the 2008-09 era but no significant coverage in the press or reputable media news websites. The broadcaster appears to have been defunct for some years so it is unlikely that new significant coverage will appear. Flip Format ( talk) 16:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Move to draftspace: Flip Format is right to question this article's viability. However, it is likely that there will be references available in local media. Therefore, I feel that this article should be moved to draftspace to allow time for these references to be located and if no new information is added in the draftspace period, or any new additions do not satisfy notability criteria, the article can naturally be allowed to disappear from Wikipedia upon expirary of the draftspace period. Rillington ( talk) 10:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

DCAP-BTLS

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

Wikipedia is not an acronym dictionary. PROD was contested without explanation * Pppery * it has begun... 16:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete since it already exists on Wikitionary and while some acronyms are notable enough for their own wikipedia page there really isn't much information on this particular one. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath ( talk) 03:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Portland and Western Railroad#Locomotive fleet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Portland and Western 1801

Portland and Western 1801 (  | talk | history | 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 subject fails GNG. The article contains no claims that this specific locomotive is notable. One source provides some extended coverage, but only discusses a paint scheme that was applied. All other sources (including one SELFPUB) only mention subject in the context of a list of many locomotives to be scrapped or upgraded. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 15:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Alfonso Cobo

Alfonso Cobo (  | talk | history | 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 businessman who sold a non-notable company. As the tag says, it is probably the result of paid editing with side portions of promotionalism and COI. Despite the attempts of the creator to convey notability, the sources do not bear the assertion. The sources provided are a mixture, primarily, of blog and oped pieces, press statements, advertorials and passing mentions. The subject fails WP:ANYBIO and BLPSOURCES: there several mentions of him across the web, mostly social media. There is almost nothing in reliable news outlets. Likewise, he has won no major recognition or award, nor has received coverage in national literature. ——Serial 15:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't see how this is COI. I really don't know that much about Cobo, which is why the article is that short. If I were truly paid to advertise him and his business on Wikipedia, it would have been far more detailed with all kinds of autobiographical trivia that you couldn't easily find online. I don't even know which city or town in Spain he was born in. Please also take a look at WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:DONTBITE too. I know that you deal with a lot of spam on Wikipedia, but please don't accuse everyone of being a bad guy. Just because some of us write about random businesspeople does not mean that we are all covertly paid to promote them. I only read about Cobo in the news and really don't know that much about him. I used Unfold before and was simply interested in finding more about where and how that app had originated. This why half of the article is actually about Unfold, which I'm actually more interested in. There's still a lot more information about him that I'd like to find out. I'm sure that their PR team would make this article far more promotional and advertorial than I would have made it. In any case, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Sendero99 ( talk) 17:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Sendero99 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 19:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Clifford Chase

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

Author of one possibly notable book, another that seems less notable, and editor of volume that got shortlisted for an award... not much here to go with with regards to WP:NBIO/ WP:NAUTHOR, I am afraid. My BEFORE is not giving much. This was likely WP:TOOSOON in 2006 when the entry was created, and it hasn't changed since, which is not a good sign. WP:ATD to consider might be redirecting this to the article about his possibly notable book ( Winkie (novel) - the article looks meh but the reviews likely suffice for that entry to meet NBOOK). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep Sorry, found one more [24], should be ok for notability now. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Those are reviews of his books, not works about him. Notability is not inherited ( WP:INHERIT). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Per WP:Author, reviews can be used to establish notability for an author. So "notability is not inherited" is not correct here b/c reviews can be used to establish than an author has "won significant critical attention." Finally, "notability is not inherited" doesn't apply to citations, it refers to someone claiming to be notable because they are related to someone who is notable. SouthernNights ( talk) 13:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
@ SouthernNights Are any of the sources found about him? The page you cite states: "A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.". The additional criteria for authors are just supplmentary: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Under notability for creative professionals, it states such a person is notable if "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." So per the language under (c), the reviews don't have to be about him but his work. And that's exactly what we have here. The reason it states this is because authors and similar creative professionals are usually represented by their works, with many authors even avoiding publicity around themselves. SouthernNights ( talk) 13:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. There is a difference of views, but none are to delete the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

2024 Super Formula Lights

2024 Super Formula Lights (  | talk | history | 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 teams and drivers and no calendar announced yet, so WP:TOOSOON in my opinion. H4MCHTR ( talk) 14:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Neterra

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

Reads mostly like an advert. Highly promotional - Rich T| C| E-Mail 13:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - but revert to the last version without all the advertising. . . Mean as custard ( talk) 11:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC) ETA: Per User_talk:Rtkat3#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/O-Sensei_(comics) and in the spirit of no bureaucracies for the holidays, re-closing this as a redirect. If folks feel strongly that the redirect should not exist, RfD can address that. However while I don't see a strong consensus for a redirect, I similarly don't see one against one. Thanks and ping me if needed. Star Mississippi 03:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

O-Sensei (comics)

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

Minor comic book character that fails WP:GNG and my BEFORE is not helpful. Plot summary, a short list of appearances in other media, no reception/analysis. The best ATD I can suggest is the usual redirect to the List of DC comics characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

King (Snow White)

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

Minor character from a classic fairy tale. We all know the Queen, but who knows that there was a King too? The article is just a very poorly referenced (two footnotes) plot summary (very short, since the character is barely mentioned) and then more plot summary of various adaptations. WP:FANCRUFT trivia, I am afraid, failing WP:GNG and WP:V, which at best can be redirected to Snow White. My BEFORE, for the record, yielded nothing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Zaeem Zia

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

Complete spam, nothing notable about the subject. Jamiebuba ( talk) 13:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 13:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Jensen Chandler Bringins

Jensen Chandler Bringins (  | talk | history | 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:NMUSIC. Promotional and replete with inline exlinks. Sources shine by their absence. Kleuske ( talk) 13:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I have removed any promotional material, please tell me what I can do to not get this page deleted! Earniebernie ( talk) 14:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

John Cogswell (psychologist)

John Cogswell (psychologist) (  | talk | history | 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 finding anything that satisfies WP:BIO. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 19:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Zirkeyk

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Hongsy ( talk) 14:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I can't find this place even searching on geonames.nga.mil Hongsy ( talk) 14:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran. If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#11), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @ Hongsy, is Zirkeyk listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.
Thanks,
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 17:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This is an abadi, which is a class of rural locality explicitly excluded from GEOLAND as so many of them are not actual communities but instead pumps/farms/factories/etc. However, locations with populations above 100 are supposed to be slowly being converted into actual villages, so it's possible this is a real place. FOARP ( talk) 11:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 17:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. There's at least a school there, per IRNA (معاون سياسي اجتماعي استاندار سيستان و بلوچستان در سفر يك روزه به شهرستان خاش از مدارس زيركيك و ده قلعه ايرندگان ديدن كرد و مشكلات حوزه آموزشي اين بخش را مورد بررسي قرار داد appears to refer to a زيركيك in Irandegan, which would correspond with the entity in this article). That being said, the IRNA link isn't significant coverage, and my Persian language abilities are quite limited, so I'm having a hard time finding anything about this place other than it exists, has a school, and has some small population. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 10:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 10:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Wizardman 23:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

South Dakota Amateur Baseball Hall of Fame

South Dakota Amateur Baseball Hall of Fame (  | talk | history | 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 enough WP:SIGCOV with which to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 20:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 20:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

There's coverage that spans from the 1950s through today. Skynxnex ( talk) 21:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For review of Skynxnex's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 10:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of EastEnders characters. Star Mississippi 19:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Carter family (EastEnders)

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

It goes without saying the EastEnders is, as EastEnders in popular culture Wikipedia article itself says, with references from reliable sources, a "BBC soap opera [[with ...]] large impact on popular culture."

The 2019 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carter family (EastEnders) discussion was closed based on rationale that "The single niche award" - in this case Inside Soap's 2014 award. The discussion was closed with the participation of only a few editors. To my mind, a second WP:AFD may well be a better way to assess whether this meets the requirements for a Wikipedia article. OK, let's start this off.

Reasons for a keep outcome

  • the article created in 2013 and deleted in 2019 via WP:AFD - the AFD was based on a quibble about an award
  • the 2023 version of the article now contains new references that the article deleted in 2019 lacked
  • a number of other users have in good faith edited the article - their opinions should be considered before outright speedly deletion

Reasons for a delete outcome

  • all the new references pre-date the 2019 AFD - has anything changed since 2019?
  • the article deleted in 2019 was created in 2013 by a now blocked user AngieWattsFan - has anything changed since 2013?

As always, more happy than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 ( talk) 🦘 10:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 10:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Atul Raghav

AfDs for this article:
Atul Raghav (  | talk | history | 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 player and article seems to be deleted before, never won any Notable tournament. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk) 09:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete -per nom. ~~ αvírαm| (tαlk) 10:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non notable athlete who has not won any notable championships. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Lethweimaster ( talk) 14:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- Kindly review the sources cited, It clearly proves the notability of a given article, Hence it passes WP:ATHLETE. *Note- Kindly have a basic understanding of Taekwondo in India and sports in India. Do check the World Taekwondo simply compete website for more. He won bronze medal in World Taekwondo G-2 Championship 2020 in Dubai and gold in national games 2018 which are clearly cited by reliable news sources. Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation (Government Body) itself mentioned and posted about him on social platforms.

Do keep in mind, Taekwondo is not cricket. It's growing unlike other unconventional sport and not a single athlete in india qualified or won medal in olympics due to multiple factors but that doesn't mean the athletes are not notable. kindly check D section of WP:BEFORE. Don't be bias and do injustice to the termm Wikipedia Notability by deleting articles intentionally and specifically of taekwondo athletes. Divineplus ( talk) 17:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Divineplus Can you please specify which reliable sources supply significant independent coverage? Interviews, simple reporting of results, or statements about competing in upcoming tournaments do not supply such coverage. As for his results, he is not even close to meeting WP:MANOTE. His bronze medal came in one of many G2 tournaments annually, not a world championship. A G2 tournament is a long way from a world championship (rated G12). Papaursa ( talk) 18:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Sure, Here's the list:
IndiaTv, ANI, The Print, News 18, Firstsportz which are showing significant coverage. Also do check other taekwondo athletes coverage because they are interviews, simple reporting of results, or statements. They should be deleted as well with this logic. @ Papaursa They are not celebrities who will get independent coverage on their personal lives just like bollywood stars get but sportspersons who will be covered for their sports interviews, statements or results of a championship. Divineplus ( talk) 04:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I can't consider the sources that say he won a bronze at the taekwondo world championships very reliable when they obviously have the facts wrong. Being chosen for a relatively minor competition (in taekwondo) after failing to make India's team for the Asian championships, a local news interview, and an interview instigated by the subject fail to show he meets WP:GNG. I didn't look at other taekwondo articles since that falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Papaursa ( talk) 10:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails in WP:ATHLETE, not a part of any notable tournament Worldiswide ( talk) 01:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As mentioned above, I do not find the sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. I also don't believe he meets the notability criteria for martial artists. His third place finish at a G-2 tournament is considered by the world taekwondo organization to be worth less than being in the top 64 at a world championship (which would hardly be considered WP notable). This is the third time this article has been created since 2020 and he hasn't had any tournament success since the first nomination. Papaursa ( talk) 10:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

This closure is not based on the observation that "the creating editor was fishy". Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Alan L. Cohen

Alan L. Cohen (  | talk | history | 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:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. References are profiles, interviews, PR, press-releases and clickbait. scope_creep Talk 15:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Once again, this is clearly a motivated desire from the nominator to delete every page I have written. Just look at two of the references (REF1 [1] alone is enough), or REF16 [2] calling him notable from the NY Times. Stravensky ( talk) 22:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to International Four Days Marches Nijmegen. signed, Rosguill talk 19:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Valkhof Festival

Valkhof Festival (  | talk | history | 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 decade without refs is enough. No secondary sources obvious in google (but I admit to no speaking Dutch). PROD'd twice. History of apparent COI. Stuartyeates ( talk) 20:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Minor technical comment: the festival was originally named "de-Affaire" then renamed the Valkhof Festival. I moved the de-Affaire article to Valkhof Festival but when I look at the article, my browser renders "Valkhof Festival" as "valkhof Festival'. At this AfD, the title is properly rendered as Valhof; the talk page title is Talk:Valkhof Festival.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 23:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep There are secondary sources. De Gelderlander for example is a respectable regional newspaper that covers the event, see here.Then there is this, in english. The article needs an update and a facelift, I´d say. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 00:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep or draft; just notable enough, yet would severely benefit from a cleanup. It currently just constitutes some general uncited information and an ugly list of lineups. Maybe move to draft? 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. ( chat | contribs) 12:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Rewrite, rework, expand. It's still in existence and there is undoubtedly plenty of material to add, though I don't think it needs a complete lineup for every year. Articles for deletion isn't the place for cleanup, I don't speak Norwegian, and somebody who does will need to edit this but it's not appropriate to delete it. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 13:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    I do speak Norwegian Dutch and I might look into how to improve this article this afternoon. Anyway agreed, no need for deletion. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. ( chat | contribs) 15:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unsuited for mainspace in its current state, and I can't find sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Of the two sources provided in this discussion - a regional newspaper isn't enough to satisfy WP:EVENTCRITERIA, the crack magazine article is a single paragraph, there is no in-depth coverage. If there is undoubtedly plenty of material to add then where are the sources? Polyamorph ( talk) 14:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 20:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to International Four Days Marches Nijmegen. Way too detailed coverage for a local festival that is part of a larger series, the Vierdaagsefeesten. If someone wants to create an article on the "Vierdaagsefeesten", as a spinoff of International Four Days Marches Nijmegen, with Valkhof in it, that would be fair game. The current is not set up right and draft will not fix it. For now redirect to the parent of the Vierdaagsefeesten where both the Vierdaagsefeesten and Valkhof are mentioned. gidonb ( talk) 07:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Stuartyeates, A. B., Ruud Buitelaar, Polyamorph, Bookworm857158367, BD2412, and User:W.G.J., can you all live with this solution? gidonb ( talk)
Stuartyeates, A. B., Ruud Buitelaar, Polyamorph, Bookworm857158367, BD2412, and User:W.G.J., trying again! gidonb ( talk) 15:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Fine with me. I would add one of the images to the parent article and mention the Commons categories Category:Vierdaagsefeesten - Wikimedia Commons and Category:Valkhof Festival - Wikimedia Commons Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 15:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
We can do both (have a redirect and a draftspace or userspace draft). No objection to purely redirecting, however. BD2412 T 16:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Fine with me. Stuartyeates ( talk) 19:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect per Gidonb - good idea. I support it. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 18:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Could editors arguing to Keep this article add the sources they found directly into the article? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Stevie Hoang

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

Previously deleted through AfD as subject does not seem to pass any of the criterion listed under WP:MUSICBIO. Only this cited source by record label seem to have power. He released " Fight for You" which was later remixed by Jason Derulo and the source to that statement is Apple Music. No review whatsoever on Allmusic, only passing mentions here, and broken links cited on the article. He would pass #5 of WP:MUSICBIO but all his albums were "self-released". dxneo ( talk) 05:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

It's not crystal, we've got a reliable source The Times stating that he's sold 65,000 albums in Japan. He's also released three albums on a notable label Avex Trax as well as a release on Mercury Records so he is not self released, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Here's evidence that one of his albums charted at 29 on the Oricon Album Chart the top chart in Japan here. It is also confirmed in the Japan Wikipedia article here which also has extra references such as Billboard Japan, and Natalie. Changed to full keep due to charting, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep based on charting in Japan and the album sales. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Recreation as a redirect welcome. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 03:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Inform version history

Inform version history (  | talk | history | 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 NLIST and WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Appropriate material is already present in Inform. List is an unneeded CFORK. No objection to a consensus redirect.  //  Timothy ::  talk  05:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. This is the second AFD on this article subject in the past two months. Please do not recreate this article until some decent sources are available. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Piper Rubio

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

BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE show nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found database listings and promo, may be WP:TOOSOON.  //  Timothy ::  talk  04:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I understand that it may be a little too soon, but I just thought since Thalia Tran had a Wikipedia page even if she started earlier, I believed it would’ve been fair since she’s now popular for the role in the film, starring in For All Mankind (film), Unstable (TV series) and possibly more yet to come. BankSforLifez ( talk) 04:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-22/alan-cohen-the-ad-man-who-molds-tech-startups
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/business/media/accounts-and-people-of-note-in-the-advertising-industry.html
  3. ^ https://www.slashfilm.com/1417186/young-five-nights-freddys-star-loved-murder-bots/
  4. ^ https://screenrant.com/five-nights-at-freddys-trailer-2/
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Balrampur Chini Mills Limited

Balrampur Chini Mills Limited (  | talk | history | 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 to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie ( talk) 02:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Gulf Giants

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

There are not enough independent citations to warrant a standalone article. Fails WP:NSPORT. Consider a deletion or redirect it to International League T20. Charlie ( talk) 02:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 03:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Abu Dhabi Knight Riders

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

There are not enough independent citations to warrant a standalone article. Fails WP:NSPORT. Consider a deletion or redirect it to International League T20, or merge with Kolkata Knight Riders. Charlie ( talk) 02:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Insecurity Insight

Insecurity Insight (  | talk | history | 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 multiple issues since 2012, sourcing almost completely self-referential. Preliminary BEFORE does not reveal obvious passing of the GNG or NONPROFIT. No concern to withdraw if adequate reliable sourcing can be demonstrated. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 10:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. There has not been enough participation to form a consensus. (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 04:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Midwest Cities Lacrosse Conference

Midwest Cities Lacrosse Conference (  | talk | history | 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 doesn't meet either the WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Let'srun ( talk) 02:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this as Keep but further discussion on a possible Merge can occur on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Islamophobia during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

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

We already have Anti-Palestinianism during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Islam is a secondary issue. Palestinian Christians are also part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The central topic is the State of Palestine. And all the listed instances of Islamophobia are directly referred to Palestinians except the last two, which are indirectly connected simply by virtue of having happened because the conflict escalated. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 09:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Just noticed Violent incidents in reaction to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Attacks against Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims. Goes to show the huge overlap that there is between all these unnecessary articles. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 11:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Maybe a merge would be in order? I would be open to discussing it after the deletion discussion ends -- if it ends with the decision to keep, that is. Professor Penguino ( talk) 23:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Well I'm open to that too. Though I think merging with the Anti-Palestianism article might be better. What do you think about that option? Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 01:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I think it would work. Professor Penguino ( talk) 02:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Powerplay44 and AryKun, what would you think of the possibility of merging this and the Anti-Palestinianism article? Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 08:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I’d be fine with that. Powerplay44 ( talk) 22:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
That link does not work for me. In any case I doubt a case can be made that we can get an article sufficiently differentiated from the Anti-Palestianism one. We currently have two articles about hate against one of the two sides of a conflict. Even if we expand both we will have very similar articles. Only that the Anti-Palestianism can also cover Palestinian Christians who are a small minority while this one can cover non-Palestinian Muslims which will not be the central focus of the article. Now that I think of it maybe a solution could be to merge both into an article called Anti-Palestinianism and Islamophobia during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. If not we're going to have two very interrelated articles with a lot of duplicate info. Three of the six paragraphs (excluding the lead) of this article are already included in the Anti-Palestianism one, and the one about "human animals" could perfectly be included as well. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 20:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Absolutely keep, look Anti-Palestinianism during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and "Islamophobia during the Israel-Hamas war" are two different things. In the entire world, not only the Palestinians but the entire Muslim community is being targeted regarding Palestine. How can Palestinian Muslims represent the Muslims of the whole world? Youknowwhoistheman ( talk) 12:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Most of the article is about Palestinians, most of the hatred is towards Palestinians and it started because of an escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is not a topic separate from Anti-Palestinianism. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 14:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I don’t want to get into the specifics of the war, but there is most definitely a strong and supportive relationship between the Hamas terrorists and many Muslims, as shown by Muslims who acclaim the vicious and immoral atrocities committed by Hamas and openly criticize the Israelis for merely defending their established nation. This proves that Islamophobia and Anti-Palestinianism in this matter are indeed strongly related and can be merged together. Powerplay44 ( talk) 22:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
If most of the article is about Palestinians then it should be merged... Homerethegreat ( talk) 09:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
More news sources use the term Islamophobia than Anti-Palestinianism, so if you want a merge, it should be the other way. Additionally, I would say the two topics are distinct; see for example this source on how the Indian far-right is trying to use the Oct 7 attack to inflame domestic opinion against Indian Muslims. Racists aren't exactly known for their cultural awareness, they'll be racist to whoever they can.
As an addendum, your personal blog post about how most Muslims are supportive of Hamas' war crimes is irrelevant here. They aren't criticizing Israel for "merely defending [it's] established nation", they're criticizing it for killing over 4000 children as if that's going to lead to a permanent peace after the war ends. AryKun ( talk) 17:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
It’s shameful that people who have a differing view from yours are labeled as racists. That aside, it was the Palestinians who incited the violence in Israel, making them consequently responsible for the deaths of Palestinians and Israelis during the war. The best comparison I have is that President Trump is personally held responsible for the January 6 Violent Protests, while those who actually committed crimes are often looked over. If Trump is credited with inciting violence and causing chaos then this should be no different because Palestine also incited violence.
About the actual merge, I’d be absolutely fine with merging it the other way because they are the same issue and there is no need for two separate articles covering the same information and ideas. Powerplay44 ( talk) 22:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I literally linked a source about Indian far-right media cells that "propagate anti-Muslim hatred" in the previous sentence; Islamophobes are racists, just as anti-Semites are racists, and the people the source discusses are both at the same time. We have many sources talking about how different groups are using the war to drum up domestic Islamophobia specifically, even if they don't have a large Palestinian population. Anti-Palestinianism and Islamophobia are distinct issues here, even if the groups perpetuating both overlap somewhat. As for your second point, I don't want to engage because it's irrelevant to the AfD and will just side-track this whole discussion. AryKun ( talk) 07:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I think I understand your reasoning now. My apologies for the statement regarding racism, I must have not seen it in the source. Powerplay44 ( talk) 22:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Easily passes GNG:
 //  Timothy ::  talk  07:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Aside from the question of notability, more discussion is needed on whether this article forks content that could fit better elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 01:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep, with no need to merge. There is sufficient distinction of the topics and sufficient reliable sources for both. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 20:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep: Agree. There seems to be sufficient distinction. If anything, Islamophobia is the more prevalent phenomena globally - one that regularly picks up in relation to Middle East events. Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_November_19&oldid=1187148169"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 18 November 20 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Pleasant Hill, Bienville Parish, Louisiana

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

There is still a "Pleasant Hill Church" here, but that's all that appears in older topos. Somewhere around 1980 someone decided the spot needed to be labelled as a town, in spite of a lack of other buildings other than what turn out to be two very decrepit barns. Again, I'm not convinced this was a real settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 23:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I went to the Bienville Parish Assessor's Office's GIS page. Using their "S-T-R" (Section-Township-Range) search option, I accessed the GIS viewer for section 10, Township T17N, Range R7W in which "Pleasant Hill, Bienville Parish, Louisiana" lies. The property lines and property owners shown are those of typical farm and timberland and there is a complete absence of the small commercial and residencal plots that would be associated with a hamlet, village, settlement etc. There is a complete absence of the roads, buildings, and other infrastricture that would be associated with a small settlement. The infrastructure seen are logging and access roads and numerous oil and gas well pads. There is clearly no settlement of any type associated with the Pleasant Hill CME Church. Paul H. ( talk) 02:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The burden should be on the editor creating articles like this one to demonstrates that the subject meets WP:GEOLAND and general notability before it can posted instead shifting the burden to other editors to determine either that it does or not or even is completely imaginary. Paul H. ( talk) 02:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Kyle Kumaran

Kyle Kumaran (  | talk | history | 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:NOTABILITY. Driver has started less than 10 races in entry-level motorsport with no notable results. MSportWiki ( talk) 23:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 31
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 00:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments Source
Meets SIGCOV 1. "Kyle Kumaran wins Sr National Rotax Karting title, Peregrine Racing claim overall honours". The Times of India. PTI. 29 November 2021. Retrieved 10 October 2022.
404 2. ^ Dutta, Debopam; Kundu, Poulomi (31 December 2021). "Kyle Kumaran- the 'speed junky' making India proud on international racing circuit".
Dup ref 1 3. ^ "Kyle Kumaran wins the senior title in National Karting Championship Rotax Max". thebridge.in. 29 November 2021.
Meets SIGCOV 4. ^ Datla, Anand (15 July 2022). "The F1 dream: motorsport is seeing revived interest in India, but funds and facilities are hard to come by". The Hindu – via www.thehindu.com.
Mention 5. ^ "Wade and Hannam excel at UAE Rotax Max Challenge 7th round". www.gulftoday.ae.
Based on interview 6. ^ "Red-hot Kyle Kumaran reigns supreme in Novice Cup".
From DR
Meets SIGCOV https://www.firstpost.com/sports/kyle-kumaran-steals-show-with-two-wins-vineeth-takes-championship-lead-in-jk-tyre-novice-cup-category-11826711.html
Dup ref 1 https://www.indiatoday.in/auto/latest-auto-news/story/2021-fmsci-national-karting-championship-kyle-kumaran-wins-senior-title-peregrine-racing-claim-overall-honours-1882192-2021-11-29
Mention in results article https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/kumaran-triumphs/articleshow/87992828.cms
No mention https://www.autocarindia.com/motor-sports-news/f1-2023-calendar-revealed-with-record-24-races-425799
I did not look for additional sources beyond the THREE above, and yes this is a weak keep, but based partially on the probability that the THREE above will have more added in the future. Agree there was no prev closure error.  //  Timothy ::  talk  22:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Pine Grove, Bienville Parish, Louisiana

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

So far GNIS seems to be doing better in Louisiana than in some other areas, but here we have an entry copied from a book on post offices. There is a Pine Grove Church shown on older maps, and its cemetery shows up on the most recent maps, but there's no sign of a settlement, and the label wanders around considerably before disappearing, suggesting that they didn't real know where to put it. I don't think this is a real settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 23:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Nothing found on this location; there are a few houses in the general area but geotag locates to a forest. Existence of a post office does not establish notability as rural post offices in the United States were often private homes or farms, any place where mail could be dropped off. Not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 00:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Bienville Parish Resources and Facilities. Baton Rouge: Louisiana Department of Public Works. Planning Division. 1952. p. 14. Pine Grove Community, near Saline, settled in the 1830's by Thomas Zilks, had a school for many years. The same building served as a church. Coushatta and Monroe were nearest places that roads permitted them to trade with in earliest days. Many families reside in this excellent farming community, today.

    Uncle G ( talk) 09:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Not notable, not even a settlement. By the way, just before I retired, I spent time in Bienville Parish geological mapping with another geologist. While studying the area of the Bienville salt dome, we used the Pine Grove Church at the coordinates given for "Pine Grove, Bienville Parish, Louisiana" as a landmark to cross-check our GPS in morning before starting work. The Pine Grove Church is still alive, well, and active. However, it is only one of many such churches unassociated with a hamlet, town, or other organized settlement. The community consists of residences dispersed throughout the area along local roads. Paul H. ( talk) 01:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep by WP:GEOLAND show by Uncle G's reference above बिनोद थारू ( talk) 02:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Change to Delete based on Paul H. comment बिनोद थारू ( talk) 02:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Delete arguments in this discussion have both a comfortable numerical majority and a stronger grounding in policy. signed, Rosguill talk 19:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Christian W. Staudinger

Christian W. Staudinger (  | talk | history | 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 was a rough translation by Andrea014 from the same article on the German Wikipedia. It was successfully deleted from German Wikipedia in 2019 for failing to meet the notability requirements and relying on self published sources. Because there is a lack of reliable secondary sources discussing the artist, we defer to WP:ARTIST for notability requirements, and he doesn't meet them. The article is is promotional. Andrea014 also uploaded high quality versions of the artist's artwork onto Wikimedia commons to replace previous versions posted by the creator of the now deleted German article. Looks like WP:COI.

Because of a lack of coverage in any reliable secondary sources, we defer to WP:ARTIST:

  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors ☒N
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique ☒N
  • The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) ☒N
  • The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. ☒N

Zenomonoz ( talk) 23:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry for my poor english!
This nomination is nothing but an act of revenge. Zenomonoz had insulted me in the deWP, I reported this to the administrators, who yesterday banned him from the deWP infinit.
I find it tragic that the deletion request in the deWP also came from a person who wanted revenge - not on me but on the artist who was persecuted in the GDR and who in real life found out the applicant was a Stasi employee. After telling him this, the deletion request was made. The request came from an IP in Jena and I'm sure I know who that was. If a deletion request here is made purely out of revenge, that seems to me to be a disgrace.
I do not want to say more.-- Andrea014 ( talk) 06:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Stay on topic. See WP:AFDEQ. The deletion nomination is due to notability and citations. German Wikipedia has different guidelines; I was blocked for misattributing a comment to you (which I retracted when I was aware). That is irrelevant here. I took a look at your english articles prior to that, because you linked to the deletion on your userpage. You’re not providing any rationale for keeping the article. Zenomonoz ( talk) 07:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The conflict with you startet on 1. November! And the reason for blocking you in deWP is different as anybody can see. -- Andrea014 ( talk) 07:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
This is a WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR argument. I nominated the article because it relies on self published sources and is missing reliable independent/secondary sources. German Wiki came to the same conclusion. Zenomonoz ( talk) 08:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Do not start the same here as in deWP! I asked for keeping off of my talkpage and you edited again. I do no "assume" bad faith, there is... Everything is to find in deWP. My work in enWP will end with this person. Too much poison in his communication. -- Andrea014 ( talk) 08:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC) (addition what I forgot -- Andrea014 ( talk) 08:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)) reply
  • As I stop contributing to the enWP: please have a look to what this person does to the articles I contributed. -- Andrea014 ( talk) 09:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    He now is removing whatever he wants. Andrea014 ( talk) 04:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Saw this at ANI and it caught my interest. I looked through the refs for this article and found major problems. Refs 9, 10, and 14 are images of government documents posted to the subject's website. Refs 15 and 35 are unclear what they're supposed to be supporting. 26, 27, 28, 43, and 44 are lists or database entries with no actual coverage. All of the rest are either links to Staudinger's own site or don't appear to mention him at all. I was reluctant to say "Delete" because I can't shake the feeling that he may be notable and the language barrier is just making it harder to find sources, but in its current state the article fails to demonstrate notability and huge portions of it are either unsourced or functionally so. Squeakachu ( talk) 20:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Also here from AN/I. I found the deleted de.wikipedia article archived at Wayback (and a similar German article at Everybodywiki) and used references cited there to supplement my own search. I agree with the nominator that he does not appear to meet the notability standard for artists. I also find insufficient evidence of notability under WP:GNG.There is interview-based coverage from 2013 and 2014 of his experiences fleeing East Germany and how it is reflected in his art, including a Bulgarian article that was mentioned in the text of the German article. Other coverage is mere mentions, and the majority of the article can only be sourced to his own website, m-lk.de (although there are several statements on that site about things having vanished without trace including not having Wikipedia articles when I did in fact find Wikipedia articles to link). I rewrote the article removing unsourced content (and the largely irrelevant material about his parents' and grandparents' politics) in case it is kept, because some of it was a BLP violation, and to enable focusing on his claims of notability. Yngvadottir ( talk) 11:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the subject is a sourced author, filmmaker, painter, sculptor, and performance artist who has shown in many exhibitions and successfully escaped from East Germany. Active in these many areas of expertise and experience, the interviews and the rewrite by Yngvadottir using page sources rounds up to his being more than just an artist. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, although the artist wants to be deleted as he told me.
This is an article not only about an artist, but also about a contemporary witness to events in GDR and Bulgaria before the fall of the Inner German border, a person having been imprisoned in GDR after failing Republikflucht and tortured in Bulgaria with agreement of GDR. In 2005 he was invited as a contemporary witness by Hildigund Neubert. There was a contemporary witness interview with the historian and journalist Jochen Voit, current director of the Memorial and Education Centre Andreasstraße ( here).
His life story was subject of both a report on German television (material about this you will find here, open "Fakt-MDR 2008") and an award-winning book by Kapka Kassabova, which has been published in english and german ( Kapka Kassabova: Border: A Journey to the Edge of Europe, ISBN: 9781783782147). That the figure of Felix in this book is the person of Staudinger can be heared in a German audio at Bruno Kreisky Forum here.
Various newspapers in Germany and one in Bulgaria reported on staudinger (you will find copys on his website, see link above).
From Oktober 2014 to Januar 2015 he was part of an exhibition in his former prison and now the Memorial Andreasstraße, see under 03. Oktober 2014.
He published three historical interesting videos on YT: he succeeded in winning Albert Hofmann, a very shy person, for an interview, made a video about the first free elections in Waltershausen/GDR with a scene that makes the election invalid (in germany it is forbidden to film the opening of ballot boxes, but the people and the artist did not know), and made an interview with a person having knowledge about skydiving in GDR.
He was one of about 500 participants in the competition and exhibition for the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe.
His exhibition about Adolf Hitler took place under police protection.
Andrea014 ( talk) 07:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Andrea014, please clarify. Does Staudinger want this article deleted? That would surprise me, since this page is still listed in the sidebar of his page about himself on the English version of his website. But if so, it is relevant to this discussion; en.wikipedia has a policy of deleting biographies of marginally notable living people when they request it. Yngvadottir ( talk) 02:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you for asking. You are right. And no, he doesn't really want the article to be deleted. He was hurt by the deletion request and it was just an initial angry reaction. After the deletion request in the German Wikipedia he wanted to destroy his works and didn't do it after all. Andrea014 ( talk) 04:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
He was tortured when he was 19. The problem with these extremely traumatized people is that the wounds never really heal. With nineteen he was afraid they would kill him and he experiences an article deletion as being erased. I am sure he will calm down again. Andrea014 ( talk) 04:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no RS for the biographical information presented in the article. I am not finding evidence of significant coverage, or exhibitions or collections. Fails WP:ARTIST. No reliable sourcing for other criteria for inclusion. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 18:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm not finding reliable sources on this artist. The above commentary about the artist being "a contemporary witness to events," having "published three historical interesting videos on YT (YouTube?)" and "was one of about 500 participants in the competition" do not provide significant coverage on this topic. Elspea756 ( talk) 22:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. A request at the last relist asked for more views on drafting, but none were given. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Dead Hendrix

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Started in 2020 and I see no charted music, albums release on major record labels, or significant coverage. There is a good article in The Source but one article is not enough to establish notability. CNMall41 ( talk) 08:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Canada. CNMall41 ( talk) 08:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - This is a reluctant vote because the rapper surely has an overactive hype team swamping the internet with promotional junk like how he's "taking over" (e.g. [2]). But he has gotten some real notice from reliable magazines, including The Source (already cited), which contrary to the nominator's statement, is not the only one out there and is instead just the only one currently in the article. Here are some more appearances in the reliable or semi-reliable music media: [3], [4]; while the collab with Levi Zadoff has gotten a fair amount of attention: [5], [6], [7], [8]. It's quite early in his career and coverage is limited to just a couple of releases, but he may have enough for a stub article here under a lenient reading of WP:SIGCOV. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The first two sources you link to are clearly marked as being written by a publicist. The rest is about a collab and not in-depth about the subject of this page. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 06:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Read the vote more carefully. I said the first link was unreliable hype, and described the second as "semi-reliable" and it is now dead regardless. I don't think you're correct about the collab-related sources not covering Dead Hendrix, but my vote is a reluctant "Weak Keep" anyway. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I did read what you wrote carefully. The problem is that I did not state clearly what I meant and apologize for such. I was referring to the first two sources that you stated were reliable (one of which you stated semi-reliable). Both links are working and both were written by publicists. Hope that clarifies.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Can you point out the coverage that you feel shows notability per either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN?-- CNMall41 ( talk) 05:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The source article is certainly good, but the collab articles (esp. 5, 6, 7) look convincing, as they are non-trivial, more than Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates. But, if needed we can send back to draft, as coverage can indeed be further developed overtime. NotAGenious ( talk) 17:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 10:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Draftify as was the case until recently. This is no reflection on NotAGenious, as there is slim credibility in some of the sources provided, however I concur with concerns around the origin of some of the source material. I am also not seeing how this is passing WP:MUSICBIO at present. Sending back to draft not only affords a little more time to see if stronger references surface, but also respects the weak keeps as the article isn't deleted outright. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Shahidayit-e Shandak

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. It's a different excel file now but still not notable. Hongsy ( talk) 14:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Reference #1 is the official Census of Iran. If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#11 in this case), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @ Hongsy, is Ganj Konar listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.
Thanks,
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 17:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Whilst simply being an abadi does not give a pass of WP:GEOLAND, in this case the population is large enough that the abadi should have been converted into a proper village. The issue is that even if this happened, it may not have this name (the name apparently translates as "You are martyred" according to Google Translate, though I wouldn't necessarily read too much into this). Looking at the table, it actually does not include an exact match for this village-name, but line 1390 includes 'شهيدايت شندك which I understand is similar in sound/meaning and has the same number of people/families as in the article. Personally I'd lean towards just redirecting this to Gowhar Kuh Rural District per WP:NOPAGE since there might at some point actually be a real article about a real village here. FOARP ( talk) 10:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 17:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. It is a notable place (WP:GEOLAND)
बिनोद थारू ( talk) 02:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 11:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

George Baugh Allen

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

Nothing much on the page which shows notability, does not appear to be much else which could be added. WP:NOTGENEALOGY JMWt ( talk) 09:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, England, and Wales. JMWt ( talk) 09:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG, AUTHOR and criteria 3 of ANYBIO. Significant coverage in books and periodical articles. There are obituaries/biographies/profiles. Biography in Boase's Modern English Biography: [10]. In particular, there is an obituary in the Illustrated London News of 26 November 1898, p 806. Multiple book reviews include, in particular: [11] [12] [13] [14]. He was considered to be one of (and the last of) the greatest special pleaders ever. (A search for "last of the great special pleaders" in Google Books brings up various publications for this). Consider for example "still for some forty years no name has more often appeared in the records of common law actions than that of this famous Special Pleader": [15]. He was was involved in the drafting of the law that created the rules and forms of pleading used in the courts, and was the co-author of a standard work on the subject. The article does not violate NOTGENEALOGY, as the article already includes details of his career as a lawyer and government official, which is part of what he is notable for. James500 ( talk) 17:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • There are a lot of obituaries in 1898, ranging from the London Gazette through professional journals to The Elizabethan, magazine of Westminster School. I cannot read any except the last one, and it actually says less than this article does, because it's only interested in this person's school and university qualifications. The ODNB matches turn out to be a mention in a relative's biography. 3 out of James500's 4 books reviews are substantial, though, and indicate scope for expansion. The fourth is 3 sentences. Uncle G ( talk) 04:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    • A question: can we use book reviews as a sign of notability for the author? Unless they substantially cover the author - rather than the book - how can they be considered a RS for notability here? JMWt ( talk) 09:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
      • The idea is that a biographical article is about someone's life and works. So as long as the sources are suitably good, journal reviews by fellow experts being preferable (although they do have a tendency to talk about themselves rather than what they are reviewing, sometimes), one can fill out a biography with verifiable reliably sourced content about the person's works. Taking the The Law Magazine and Review review pointed to, for example: This tells us what's discussed in the book, and it's not some entertainment magazine. Its editor is Thomas Pitt Taswell-Langmead. I could probably get a moderately sized paragraph out of that if I were writing. Uncle G ( talk) 10:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Leerom Segal

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

Most of the sources for Segal are either self published/unreliable/press releases or otherwise affiliated. 40 under 40 awards are generally pretty lackluster in establishing notability because many, many orgs and "magazines" give these out, so they aren't suitable on their own. Before gutting it, it was just straight up PR gibberish as well. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I did. It's a businessman with a career slightly in the public eye. There is space between that and encyclopedic notability. gidonb ( talk) 18:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors please review newly located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Even with the new sources, it's still !delete for me. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment if more sources can be brought up that are not just self publishing then it shouldn't warrant deletion. However if this is not met then perhaps deletion is indeed warranted. On the whole I'm learning more towards Delete. If proper sources are brought and notability better proved then I'll switch to Keep. Homerethegreat ( talk) 12:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 10:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

University of Belgrade Faculty of Civil Engineering

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

Subject fails W:NCORP and GNG. Efforts to restore redirect have failed and redirects are costly. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Southern Pacific 4404

Southern Pacific 4404 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost all of the sourcing here is non-independent. Feather River Rail Society is the operator of the Western Pacific Railroad Museum, which formerly held the locomotive in its collection. A bill of sale is a primary source which also does not contribute to notability. The Diesel Era source is not enough to meet GNG. This should at best exist as a redirect to the museum. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: It’s obviously notable but very underrated 27.33.233.138 ( talk) 10:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC) — 27.33.233.138 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Originalism. ✗ plicit 23:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Original meaning

Original meaning (  | talk | history | 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 references; covered at Originalism GnocchiFan ( talk) 22:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Jullien Ramirez

Jullien Ramirez (  | talk | history | 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 Joeykai ( talk) 22:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

 I'm not sure: I think that this would rest on whether the references to [ [16]] suggest presumed notability... I don't see any other inherent notability issued on this article. AriTheHorse 01:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Charcoal feather ( talk) 21:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

J-Popcon

J-Popcon (  | talk | history | 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 article that is not backed up by any sources. Also fails WP:GNG. Proposing Delete. Powerplay44 ( talk) 21:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

no Disagree, I've been able to find some seemingly independent sources to back up some of the article. Moreover, this seems to be a pretty major event and this article significantly benefits readers in my opinion. AriTheHorse 01:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Potential sources I could find: I can't speak Danish, but there could be enough sources to justify a keep vote.
  1. Non-paywall - The Copenhagen Post: Turning Japanese, we really think so! https://cphpost.dk/2017-04-16/things-to-do/turning-japanase-we-really-think-so/
  2. The Copenhagen Post: About Town: Going Japanese and we like it! https://cphpost.dk/2018-05-19/general/about-town-going-japanese-and-we-like-it/
  3. Ekstra Bladet: Letpåklædte kattekvinder indtog Øksnehallen - https://ekstrabladet.dk/forbrug/Teknologi/article4685782.ece
  4. Ekstra Bladet: 'Sensation' er for amatører! https://ekstrabladet.dk/forbrug/Teknologi/article4131694.ece
  1. Paywall - Mangafest: Derfor går de unge rundt med blåt hår og ninjakostumer i weekenden Politiken: https://politiken.dk/ibyen/byliv/art5914373/Derfor-g%C3%A5r-de-unge-rundt-med-bl%C3%A5t-h%C3%A5r-og-ninjakostumer-i-weekenden
  2. Politiken: Udklædt som skolepige: »Folk forstår ikke, hvad det er, vi har gang i«  https://politiken.dk/kultur/art5508816/Udkl%C3%A6dt-som-skolepige-%C2%BBFolk-forst%C3%A5r-ikke-hvad-det-er-vi-har-gang-i%C2%AB
  3. Politiken: 2000 manganørder mødes til Japan-messe https://politiken.dk/kultur/art5706890/2000-mangan%C3%B8rder-m%C3%B8des-til-Japan-messe Esw01407 ( talk) 00:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Stradr

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

Promotional article yvanyblog (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Simon Says (band)

Simon Says (band) (  | talk | history | 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 WP:GARAGE band with only user-generated websites ( AllMusic) used as a source. Tryin to make a change :-/ 21:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Faruk Buljubašić

Faruk Buljubašić (  | talk | history | 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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 20:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 04:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Steve Cash (Youtuber, Musician)

AfDs for this article:
Steve Cash (Youtuber, 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)

Not a notable YouTuber or musician. Fails WP:GNG with not enough significant, in-depth, secondary source coverage. Different title needed if kept as well, but I believe should be deleted. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 20:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Liliana Barba

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

She exists and has had some success. Not enough to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn ( talk) 20:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Iain MacKintosh

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

Had some success, but doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 20:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Ian Cottage

Ian Cottage (  | talk | history | 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 subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NDIRECTOR. Neither of the sources in the article meet the threshold for notability. The article itself has been tagged with {{ BLP sources}} since October 2012.

I've attempted to search for reliable sources on the director and his works, and while I can confirm the works exist, I've not been able to find any reviews of them nor of his work more generally. The closest I was able to find was a potential interview in a now defunct publication (Boolean Flix) that is now offline and not archived anywhere.

Finally, someone claiming to be the article subject attempted to nominate this for deletion back in June. While I can't verify if this editor is the article subject, if they are then it seems as though WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE would apply in this circumstance. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Holley Performance Products where it's already covered, rendering a merger unnecessary Star Mississippi 03:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Holley Motor Car

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

Nothing on the page appears to be verified WP:V and there does not appear to be enough RS to indicate notability standards are met JMWt ( talk) 19:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Retain as there are independent sources about the article subject, though it was originally poorly written. I'm going to rewrite it within the next few days. AriTheHorse 19:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Though you could possibly merge it with Holley Performance Products AriTheHorse 20:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm disagreeing with myself. All of the relevant contents of this article, except for a small description of their first car, is contained within Holley Performance Products. Agree that this one should be deleted. AriTheHorse 03:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
AriTheHorse, if you no longer hold an opinion that you've bolded, then please strike it out like this. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the tip!, will do. AriTheHorse 05:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Chikondi Gondwe

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

The subject, a Malawian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was passing mentions in squad lists ( 1, 2) and match reports ( 1, 2). JTtheOG ( talk) 19:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Ali Akbarpour

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

Fails notability, this page has been deleted once as Ali Akbarpour (athlete), he won some medals but I don't think they are notable enough. also you can see lots of medals for him in the medal table template all of them listed in 2019 which can't be right! I checked one of his achievements and he won a medal in "World Masters Championships" (competition for older guys) which is a complete different than a World Championship but the page creator failed to mention that (most probably intentionally) Sports2021 ( talk) 18:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Non-notable BJJ championships. Lethweimaster ( talk)
  • Delete He's definitely had success in JJIF tournaments. However, his world title came in a masters (older) division with only 4 competitors [19], which is not enough to show WP notability. I've been going through the many references given, but they seem to be simply reporting results of the Iranian national team. If someone can show there is significant independent coverage I'd be happy to vote to keep this article. Papaursa ( talk) 19:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ whether to keep or merge and none is likely to emerge out of this discussion given the changing facts of his employment. As there is no scenario in which this is going to be deleted, a merger discussion can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 20:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI

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

Violates WP:NOTNEWS and does not meet WP:NEVENT. BangJan1999 18:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Just note that the very acknowledgement this is a "developing situation" is precisely why WP:NOTNEWS applies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site (regarless of how well-sourced). -- ZimZalaBim talk 22:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I do not get your argument, the {{ current event}} template exists for a reason. Aaron Liu ( talk) 23:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
And that template is best used on an existing article with lasting notability, but happens to have a developing event occuring related to it at the moment. -- ZimZalaBim talk 23:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
As long as an article is created it exists, and the template is most often used on new articles. In fact, two out of three of its current transclusions are new articles. Aaron Liu ( talk) 00:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
You're correct that Wikipedia is not a news site. The page isn't developed as a news source. The page contain a timeline of developing situation at "$80 billion" company and firing of its CEO – NirvanaToday t@lk 21:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Articles are not real estate; we are not making comparables whether one should exist based on the existence—or lack thereof—of another. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge to OpenAI and Sam Altman as above. Obviously both OpenAI and Altman are significant players in the tech space, especially given the involvement of others like Microsoft, so the decision to remove him will have wide-reaching implications; however, I believe much of those implications in turn stem from the implications on Altman and OpenAI, and those should (at least at the moment) be merged into those respective articles. (Separate comment: The WP:FULL protection on Altman's page definitely complicates the matter, and I hope that the situation with that page can be resolved quickly without needing to keep that protection level for as long a time as it's been set.) Andrew11374265 ( talk) 17:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
To the contrary, Altman's removal is unheard of and its consequences are still continuing. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
(1) No such words in the listed source, and (2) we disregard opinion pieces anyway. — kashmīrī  TALK 16:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
How would you analyze an impact outside of an opinion piece? While the piece does say the exact opposite of unheard of, it also claims the impact will be great Aaron Liu ( talk) 16:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
My opinion, in turn, is that the impact will be negligible, as I believe that several dozen implementations of AI will be on the market in three years from now, the scene will grow exponentially, and nobody will care about internal staff management problems in one of their developers of years ago. As you can guess, my crystal ball has precisely the same value as Peter Coy's crystal ball. — kashmīrī  TALK 17:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
To some extent, we have no choice but to crystal-ball for recent events nominated shortly after creation. So long as 1) we definitely want to keep some events (e.g. an earthquake killing thousands); 2) we definitely want to delete some events despite meeting GNG (e.g. an individual game between two sports teams during the regular season with nothing special happening); and 3) there is no objective standard for how much an event needs to go beyond GNG to qualify for a standalone article: we have to draw the line somewhere, and that somewhere can only be determined through guesswork and subjective evaluations of impact. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge into OpenAI per WP:NOPAGE. An ousting of a CEO does not necessitate a separate article, regardless of the news reporting. Natg 19 ( talk) 02:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge into OpenAI, at least for now. It will probably be notable enough to qualify as an event in the future in all likelihood, especially of OpenAI implodes because of it, but until those major knock-on effects actually happen it can't be it's own article just yet. And, as of now there are still rumors that Sam will just join back with the company and make this all a blip. G5bestcfb ( talk) 04:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge As it appears this event has concluded, the information on this event will be able to be summarised into the main OpenAI article Mr vili ( talk) 06:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The reinstatement of Altman does not assume a conclusion to sourcing or information, and there is still plenty of information that has yet to be included in this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak merge to OpenAI. Keep redirect and categories. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge - With Altman now reinstated this 5 day incident isn't notable enough for a dedicated article. The background section overlaps existing pages, aftermath is largely obsolete, and reactions are now less notable. If not merged this will likely morph into an article about the resulting board shakeup as news coverage shifts focus. Jamedeus ( talk) 07:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Actually we do: Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident. Natg 19 ( talk) 19:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - Per @ Artem S. Tashkinov PrecariousWorlds ( talk) 12:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into OpenAI and Sam Altman per all above. At least currently a WP:RECENTISM. Brandmeister talk 15:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Pretty much just a investors dispute. This really only merits maybe a two sentence mention in Altman and OpenAI's articles. DarkSide830 ( talk) 16:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    It definitely warrants way more than two sentences with the Microsoft danger and almost all employees nearly resigning. Aaron Liu ( talk) 16:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Eh, maybe, but that's the sort of fluff CYRSTAL-ish stuff that we don't exactly need. Altman never became a Microsoft employee and those employees didn't in fact resign. Personally, I think this is a complete nothing-burger as it appears now. Altman is still the CEO and we can't deduce if the board composition changing will have any real impacts. DarkSide830 ( talk) 03:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    The US almost defaulting wasn't a nothing-burger either Aaron Liu ( talk) 15:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per WP:NOPAGE, which aptly notes that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; it was a moment when Altman was removed from OpenAI's leadership for what appears to have been less then a week, and employee reaction was notable. But Altman's been reinstated, and it may well be better to simply cover this in the history section of Open AI, and/or in a new section on the company's unique corporate governance structure. But I don't see a need for a standalone article at this time, particularly when context on the broader corporate pages would help readers better understand this incident. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 21:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Re your assertion that "this as among the most consequential battles in history", please consdsier WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. This sums up much of the arguments here for keeping this article, and it is completely against the nature of an encyclopedia. -- ZimZalaBim talk 14:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I'd say there are two camps. 1 is "very significant", which includes this !vote; 2 is "notable already and too long to merge". Aaron Liu ( talk) 14:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
It must have been an oversight that you have missed the largest camp by !vote numbers: those Wikipedians who believe that this article runs afoul of several Wikipedia policies and who have therefore advocated for a merge. — kashmīrī  TALK 20:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Two camps for the support side, if that somehow wasn't obvious enough. ZimZalaBim said This sums up much of the arguments here for keeping this article. Aaron Liu ( talk) 20:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
To compare this boardroom scuffle to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is an absurd hyperbole - a classic example of the small reference pools and narrow frames of reference that often trouble this site. But even if it somehow proved to be so in the future - you can't demonstrate that right now. That's what WP:CRYSTAL is about. It's not reasonable to argue that we should preserve this extremely specific treatment of the topic because it might one day be of earth-shattering importance is silly. Maybe this event brings about - or prevents - some unthinkable far-future robo-basilisk empire, but we can't know that. We can only go with the situation as it is now, and as I said above - we simply would not be doing this for a similar contretemps at many other larger corporations with much wider markets. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 09:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep at least for now. Major and complicated event best covered in one article rather than as an indigestible fork to two other articles. Ultimately, it might become a section to another article but for now we should keep it. HouseOfChange ( talk) 21:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎Keep. Eluchil404 ( talk) 01:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)( non-admin closure) reply

Cultural nationalism

Cultural nationalism (  | talk | history | 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 (possibly irreconcilable) verifiability and notability problems. The text is largely unsourced and it isn’t at all clear what it’s even supposed to be talking about. I have tagged in the past, but it appears the literature on a phenomenon known as “cultural nationalism” is incredibly vague in what it’s even attempting to define. John Hutchinson appears to be one of the only scholars to engage the term in and of itself (and Kai Nielsen), but does one (or two) scholars’ conceptualisations really meet our notability criteria? My feeling is what he has to say can go in Nationalism. Yr Enw ( talk) 17:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I would like to see this article remain and be improved. It can be a helpful addition to the article in the German-language Wikipedia because the term Kulturnation is an important and well-documented historical concept and is still used and discussed today in Germany.-- Baekemm ( talk) 18:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
That raises an interesting point as to whether article translations can (sometimes) constitute different phenomenons? I’m not saying that’s an argument for or against deletion of this one, but a sidepoint Yr Enw ( talk) 18:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article is underdeveloped, but a quick search shows 48,000 books which use the term. Many of the books use the term as part of chapter titles ie. in-depth. We are only waiting for someone to improve the article. Based on the very wide usage, the term is notable. It may have differing POVs about its meaning, but multiple POVs is how Wikipedia works. Just quickly browsing those sources here is one that says
Moving beyond the cultural nationalist period has not been easy, and despite the many civil rights glories associated with the 1960s and 1970s, the fact that a new cultural logic has slowly made its way into our daily lives makes some matters (urbanization, immigration, and education) ever more pressing. Even as a critique of cultural nationalism began to emerge following its heyday in the 1960s, the limitations of cultural nationalism as a public social discourse encountered resistance from women and men alike. [20]
This is good info, we now know when it had a "heyday", it's no longer in fashion, the context of use "civil rights" era etc.. All this could be incorporated. And that's the first source I randomly picked from the 48,000. -- Green C 18:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I largely agree with everything GreenC had to say, the term definitely has wide usage. Through just doing a preliminary search on google scholar, I see a lot of research using the concept as a guiding point for their research, including research from just the past year or two. When looking at articles published since 2022 that were on google scholar, 5000 used the term cultural nationalism. Obviously, this is just a preliminary search but the fact that it is still being used in research adds to the reasons it should be kept as an article in my opinion. Sillypilled ( talk) 04:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The term, like many others in sociology, is indeed ambiguous, as the nom claims. That would make expanding this article more challenging, but not a reason to delete it. Ample references and frequent usage establish notability. Owen× ☎ 19:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ by Kuru as WP:CSD#G5. ✗ plicit 13:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Rajveer Deol

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Only in september did Deol make his debut. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 17:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to Morrison (disambiguation). RL0919 ( talk) 17:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

List of organisations with Morrison in their name

List of organisations with Morrison in their name (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
List of places with Morrison in their name (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These fail WP:PTM, anything known as "Morrison" can and should be listed at Morrison (disambiguation). -- Tavix ( talk) 16:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗ plicit 23:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Tynedale FM

Tynedale FM (  | talk | history | 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 cites no sources and has been tagged as having no sources since 2009. A WP:BEFORE search brings up only trivial mentions of the station in local blogs of the 2008-09 era but no significant coverage in the press or reputable media news websites. The broadcaster appears to have been defunct for some years so it is unlikely that new significant coverage will appear. Flip Format ( talk) 16:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Move to draftspace: Flip Format is right to question this article's viability. However, it is likely that there will be references available in local media. Therefore, I feel that this article should be moved to draftspace to allow time for these references to be located and if no new information is added in the draftspace period, or any new additions do not satisfy notability criteria, the article can naturally be allowed to disappear from Wikipedia upon expirary of the draftspace period. Rillington ( talk) 10:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

DCAP-BTLS

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

Wikipedia is not an acronym dictionary. PROD was contested without explanation * Pppery * it has begun... 16:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete since it already exists on Wikitionary and while some acronyms are notable enough for their own wikipedia page there really isn't much information on this particular one. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath ( talk) 03:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Portland and Western Railroad#Locomotive fleet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Portland and Western 1801

Portland and Western 1801 (  | talk | history | 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 subject fails GNG. The article contains no claims that this specific locomotive is notable. One source provides some extended coverage, but only discusses a paint scheme that was applied. All other sources (including one SELFPUB) only mention subject in the context of a list of many locomotives to be scrapped or upgraded. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 15:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Alfonso Cobo

Alfonso Cobo (  | talk | history | 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 businessman who sold a non-notable company. As the tag says, it is probably the result of paid editing with side portions of promotionalism and COI. Despite the attempts of the creator to convey notability, the sources do not bear the assertion. The sources provided are a mixture, primarily, of blog and oped pieces, press statements, advertorials and passing mentions. The subject fails WP:ANYBIO and BLPSOURCES: there several mentions of him across the web, mostly social media. There is almost nothing in reliable news outlets. Likewise, he has won no major recognition or award, nor has received coverage in national literature. ——Serial 15:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't see how this is COI. I really don't know that much about Cobo, which is why the article is that short. If I were truly paid to advertise him and his business on Wikipedia, it would have been far more detailed with all kinds of autobiographical trivia that you couldn't easily find online. I don't even know which city or town in Spain he was born in. Please also take a look at WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:DONTBITE too. I know that you deal with a lot of spam on Wikipedia, but please don't accuse everyone of being a bad guy. Just because some of us write about random businesspeople does not mean that we are all covertly paid to promote them. I only read about Cobo in the news and really don't know that much about him. I used Unfold before and was simply interested in finding more about where and how that app had originated. This why half of the article is actually about Unfold, which I'm actually more interested in. There's still a lot more information about him that I'd like to find out. I'm sure that their PR team would make this article far more promotional and advertorial than I would have made it. In any case, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Sendero99 ( talk) 17:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Sendero99 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 19:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Clifford Chase

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

Author of one possibly notable book, another that seems less notable, and editor of volume that got shortlisted for an award... not much here to go with with regards to WP:NBIO/ WP:NAUTHOR, I am afraid. My BEFORE is not giving much. This was likely WP:TOOSOON in 2006 when the entry was created, and it hasn't changed since, which is not a good sign. WP:ATD to consider might be redirecting this to the article about his possibly notable book ( Winkie (novel) - the article looks meh but the reviews likely suffice for that entry to meet NBOOK). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep Sorry, found one more [24], should be ok for notability now. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Those are reviews of his books, not works about him. Notability is not inherited ( WP:INHERIT). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Per WP:Author, reviews can be used to establish notability for an author. So "notability is not inherited" is not correct here b/c reviews can be used to establish than an author has "won significant critical attention." Finally, "notability is not inherited" doesn't apply to citations, it refers to someone claiming to be notable because they are related to someone who is notable. SouthernNights ( talk) 13:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
@ SouthernNights Are any of the sources found about him? The page you cite states: "A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.". The additional criteria for authors are just supplmentary: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Under notability for creative professionals, it states such a person is notable if "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." So per the language under (c), the reviews don't have to be about him but his work. And that's exactly what we have here. The reason it states this is because authors and similar creative professionals are usually represented by their works, with many authors even avoiding publicity around themselves. SouthernNights ( talk) 13:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. There is a difference of views, but none are to delete the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

2024 Super Formula Lights

2024 Super Formula Lights (  | talk | history | 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 teams and drivers and no calendar announced yet, so WP:TOOSOON in my opinion. H4MCHTR ( talk) 14:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Neterra

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

Reads mostly like an advert. Highly promotional - Rich T| C| E-Mail 13:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - but revert to the last version without all the advertising. . . Mean as custard ( talk) 11:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC) ETA: Per User_talk:Rtkat3#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/O-Sensei_(comics) and in the spirit of no bureaucracies for the holidays, re-closing this as a redirect. If folks feel strongly that the redirect should not exist, RfD can address that. However while I don't see a strong consensus for a redirect, I similarly don't see one against one. Thanks and ping me if needed. Star Mississippi 03:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

O-Sensei (comics)

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

Minor comic book character that fails WP:GNG and my BEFORE is not helpful. Plot summary, a short list of appearances in other media, no reception/analysis. The best ATD I can suggest is the usual redirect to the List of DC comics characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

King (Snow White)

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

Minor character from a classic fairy tale. We all know the Queen, but who knows that there was a King too? The article is just a very poorly referenced (two footnotes) plot summary (very short, since the character is barely mentioned) and then more plot summary of various adaptations. WP:FANCRUFT trivia, I am afraid, failing WP:GNG and WP:V, which at best can be redirected to Snow White. My BEFORE, for the record, yielded nothing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Zaeem Zia

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

Complete spam, nothing notable about the subject. Jamiebuba ( talk) 13:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 13:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Jensen Chandler Bringins

Jensen Chandler Bringins (  | talk | history | 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:NMUSIC. Promotional and replete with inline exlinks. Sources shine by their absence. Kleuske ( talk) 13:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I have removed any promotional material, please tell me what I can do to not get this page deleted! Earniebernie ( talk) 14:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

John Cogswell (psychologist)

John Cogswell (psychologist) (  | talk | history | 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 finding anything that satisfies WP:BIO. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 19:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Zirkeyk

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Hongsy ( talk) 14:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I can't find this place even searching on geonames.nga.mil Hongsy ( talk) 14:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran. If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#11), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @ Hongsy, is Zirkeyk listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.
Thanks,
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 17:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This is an abadi, which is a class of rural locality explicitly excluded from GEOLAND as so many of them are not actual communities but instead pumps/farms/factories/etc. However, locations with populations above 100 are supposed to be slowly being converted into actual villages, so it's possible this is a real place. FOARP ( talk) 11:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 17:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. There's at least a school there, per IRNA (معاون سياسي اجتماعي استاندار سيستان و بلوچستان در سفر يك روزه به شهرستان خاش از مدارس زيركيك و ده قلعه ايرندگان ديدن كرد و مشكلات حوزه آموزشي اين بخش را مورد بررسي قرار داد appears to refer to a زيركيك in Irandegan, which would correspond with the entity in this article). That being said, the IRNA link isn't significant coverage, and my Persian language abilities are quite limited, so I'm having a hard time finding anything about this place other than it exists, has a school, and has some small population. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 10:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 10:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Wizardman 23:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

South Dakota Amateur Baseball Hall of Fame

South Dakota Amateur Baseball Hall of Fame (  | talk | history | 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 enough WP:SIGCOV with which to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 20:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 20:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

There's coverage that spans from the 1950s through today. Skynxnex ( talk) 21:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For review of Skynxnex's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 10:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of EastEnders characters. Star Mississippi 19:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Carter family (EastEnders)

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

It goes without saying the EastEnders is, as EastEnders in popular culture Wikipedia article itself says, with references from reliable sources, a "BBC soap opera [[with ...]] large impact on popular culture."

The 2019 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carter family (EastEnders) discussion was closed based on rationale that "The single niche award" - in this case Inside Soap's 2014 award. The discussion was closed with the participation of only a few editors. To my mind, a second WP:AFD may well be a better way to assess whether this meets the requirements for a Wikipedia article. OK, let's start this off.

Reasons for a keep outcome

  • the article created in 2013 and deleted in 2019 via WP:AFD - the AFD was based on a quibble about an award
  • the 2023 version of the article now contains new references that the article deleted in 2019 lacked
  • a number of other users have in good faith edited the article - their opinions should be considered before outright speedly deletion

Reasons for a delete outcome

  • all the new references pre-date the 2019 AFD - has anything changed since 2019?
  • the article deleted in 2019 was created in 2013 by a now blocked user AngieWattsFan - has anything changed since 2013?

As always, more happy than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 ( talk) 🦘 10:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 10:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Atul Raghav

AfDs for this article:
Atul Raghav (  | talk | history | 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 player and article seems to be deleted before, never won any Notable tournament. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk) 09:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete -per nom. ~~ αvírαm| (tαlk) 10:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non notable athlete who has not won any notable championships. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Lethweimaster ( talk) 14:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- Kindly review the sources cited, It clearly proves the notability of a given article, Hence it passes WP:ATHLETE. *Note- Kindly have a basic understanding of Taekwondo in India and sports in India. Do check the World Taekwondo simply compete website for more. He won bronze medal in World Taekwondo G-2 Championship 2020 in Dubai and gold in national games 2018 which are clearly cited by reliable news sources. Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation (Government Body) itself mentioned and posted about him on social platforms.

Do keep in mind, Taekwondo is not cricket. It's growing unlike other unconventional sport and not a single athlete in india qualified or won medal in olympics due to multiple factors but that doesn't mean the athletes are not notable. kindly check D section of WP:BEFORE. Don't be bias and do injustice to the termm Wikipedia Notability by deleting articles intentionally and specifically of taekwondo athletes. Divineplus ( talk) 17:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Divineplus Can you please specify which reliable sources supply significant independent coverage? Interviews, simple reporting of results, or statements about competing in upcoming tournaments do not supply such coverage. As for his results, he is not even close to meeting WP:MANOTE. His bronze medal came in one of many G2 tournaments annually, not a world championship. A G2 tournament is a long way from a world championship (rated G12). Papaursa ( talk) 18:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Sure, Here's the list:
IndiaTv, ANI, The Print, News 18, Firstsportz which are showing significant coverage. Also do check other taekwondo athletes coverage because they are interviews, simple reporting of results, or statements. They should be deleted as well with this logic. @ Papaursa They are not celebrities who will get independent coverage on their personal lives just like bollywood stars get but sportspersons who will be covered for their sports interviews, statements or results of a championship. Divineplus ( talk) 04:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I can't consider the sources that say he won a bronze at the taekwondo world championships very reliable when they obviously have the facts wrong. Being chosen for a relatively minor competition (in taekwondo) after failing to make India's team for the Asian championships, a local news interview, and an interview instigated by the subject fail to show he meets WP:GNG. I didn't look at other taekwondo articles since that falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Papaursa ( talk) 10:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails in WP:ATHLETE, not a part of any notable tournament Worldiswide ( talk) 01:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As mentioned above, I do not find the sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. I also don't believe he meets the notability criteria for martial artists. His third place finish at a G-2 tournament is considered by the world taekwondo organization to be worth less than being in the top 64 at a world championship (which would hardly be considered WP notable). This is the third time this article has been created since 2020 and he hasn't had any tournament success since the first nomination. Papaursa ( talk) 10:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

This closure is not based on the observation that "the creating editor was fishy". Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Alan L. Cohen

Alan L. Cohen (  | talk | history | 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:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. References are profiles, interviews, PR, press-releases and clickbait. scope_creep Talk 15:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Once again, this is clearly a motivated desire from the nominator to delete every page I have written. Just look at two of the references (REF1 [1] alone is enough), or REF16 [2] calling him notable from the NY Times. Stravensky ( talk) 22:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to International Four Days Marches Nijmegen. signed, Rosguill talk 19:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Valkhof Festival

Valkhof Festival (  | talk | history | 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 decade without refs is enough. No secondary sources obvious in google (but I admit to no speaking Dutch). PROD'd twice. History of apparent COI. Stuartyeates ( talk) 20:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Minor technical comment: the festival was originally named "de-Affaire" then renamed the Valkhof Festival. I moved the de-Affaire article to Valkhof Festival but when I look at the article, my browser renders "Valkhof Festival" as "valkhof Festival'. At this AfD, the title is properly rendered as Valhof; the talk page title is Talk:Valkhof Festival.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 23:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep There are secondary sources. De Gelderlander for example is a respectable regional newspaper that covers the event, see here.Then there is this, in english. The article needs an update and a facelift, I´d say. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 00:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep or draft; just notable enough, yet would severely benefit from a cleanup. It currently just constitutes some general uncited information and an ugly list of lineups. Maybe move to draft? 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. ( chat | contribs) 12:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Rewrite, rework, expand. It's still in existence and there is undoubtedly plenty of material to add, though I don't think it needs a complete lineup for every year. Articles for deletion isn't the place for cleanup, I don't speak Norwegian, and somebody who does will need to edit this but it's not appropriate to delete it. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 13:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    I do speak Norwegian Dutch and I might look into how to improve this article this afternoon. Anyway agreed, no need for deletion. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. ( chat | contribs) 15:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unsuited for mainspace in its current state, and I can't find sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Of the two sources provided in this discussion - a regional newspaper isn't enough to satisfy WP:EVENTCRITERIA, the crack magazine article is a single paragraph, there is no in-depth coverage. If there is undoubtedly plenty of material to add then where are the sources? Polyamorph ( talk) 14:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 20:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to International Four Days Marches Nijmegen. Way too detailed coverage for a local festival that is part of a larger series, the Vierdaagsefeesten. If someone wants to create an article on the "Vierdaagsefeesten", as a spinoff of International Four Days Marches Nijmegen, with Valkhof in it, that would be fair game. The current is not set up right and draft will not fix it. For now redirect to the parent of the Vierdaagsefeesten where both the Vierdaagsefeesten and Valkhof are mentioned. gidonb ( talk) 07:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Stuartyeates, A. B., Ruud Buitelaar, Polyamorph, Bookworm857158367, BD2412, and User:W.G.J., can you all live with this solution? gidonb ( talk)
Stuartyeates, A. B., Ruud Buitelaar, Polyamorph, Bookworm857158367, BD2412, and User:W.G.J., trying again! gidonb ( talk) 15:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Fine with me. I would add one of the images to the parent article and mention the Commons categories Category:Vierdaagsefeesten - Wikimedia Commons and Category:Valkhof Festival - Wikimedia Commons Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 15:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
We can do both (have a redirect and a draftspace or userspace draft). No objection to purely redirecting, however. BD2412 T 16:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Fine with me. Stuartyeates ( talk) 19:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect per Gidonb - good idea. I support it. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 18:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Could editors arguing to Keep this article add the sources they found directly into the article? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Stevie Hoang

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

Previously deleted through AfD as subject does not seem to pass any of the criterion listed under WP:MUSICBIO. Only this cited source by record label seem to have power. He released " Fight for You" which was later remixed by Jason Derulo and the source to that statement is Apple Music. No review whatsoever on Allmusic, only passing mentions here, and broken links cited on the article. He would pass #5 of WP:MUSICBIO but all his albums were "self-released". dxneo ( talk) 05:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

It's not crystal, we've got a reliable source The Times stating that he's sold 65,000 albums in Japan. He's also released three albums on a notable label Avex Trax as well as a release on Mercury Records so he is not self released, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Here's evidence that one of his albums charted at 29 on the Oricon Album Chart the top chart in Japan here. It is also confirmed in the Japan Wikipedia article here which also has extra references such as Billboard Japan, and Natalie. Changed to full keep due to charting, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep based on charting in Japan and the album sales. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Recreation as a redirect welcome. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 03:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Inform version history

Inform version history (  | talk | history | 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 NLIST and WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Appropriate material is already present in Inform. List is an unneeded CFORK. No objection to a consensus redirect.  //  Timothy ::  talk  05:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. This is the second AFD on this article subject in the past two months. Please do not recreate this article until some decent sources are available. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Piper Rubio

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

BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE show nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found database listings and promo, may be WP:TOOSOON.  //  Timothy ::  talk  04:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I understand that it may be a little too soon, but I just thought since Thalia Tran had a Wikipedia page even if she started earlier, I believed it would’ve been fair since she’s now popular for the role in the film, starring in For All Mankind (film), Unstable (TV series) and possibly more yet to come. BankSforLifez ( talk) 04:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-22/alan-cohen-the-ad-man-who-molds-tech-startups
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/business/media/accounts-and-people-of-note-in-the-advertising-industry.html
  3. ^ https://www.slashfilm.com/1417186/young-five-nights-freddys-star-loved-murder-bots/
  4. ^ https://screenrant.com/five-nights-at-freddys-trailer-2/
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Balrampur Chini Mills Limited

Balrampur Chini Mills Limited (  | talk | history | 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 to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie ( talk) 02:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Gulf Giants

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

There are not enough independent citations to warrant a standalone article. Fails WP:NSPORT. Consider a deletion or redirect it to International League T20. Charlie ( talk) 02:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 03:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Abu Dhabi Knight Riders

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

There are not enough independent citations to warrant a standalone article. Fails WP:NSPORT. Consider a deletion or redirect it to International League T20, or merge with Kolkata Knight Riders. Charlie ( talk) 02:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Insecurity Insight

Insecurity Insight (  | talk | history | 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 multiple issues since 2012, sourcing almost completely self-referential. Preliminary BEFORE does not reveal obvious passing of the GNG or NONPROFIT. No concern to withdraw if adequate reliable sourcing can be demonstrated. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 10:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. There has not been enough participation to form a consensus. (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 04:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Midwest Cities Lacrosse Conference

Midwest Cities Lacrosse Conference (  | talk | history | 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 doesn't meet either the WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Let'srun ( talk) 02:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this as Keep but further discussion on a possible Merge can occur on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Islamophobia during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

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

We already have Anti-Palestinianism during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Islam is a secondary issue. Palestinian Christians are also part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The central topic is the State of Palestine. And all the listed instances of Islamophobia are directly referred to Palestinians except the last two, which are indirectly connected simply by virtue of having happened because the conflict escalated. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 09:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Just noticed Violent incidents in reaction to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Attacks against Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims. Goes to show the huge overlap that there is between all these unnecessary articles. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 11:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Maybe a merge would be in order? I would be open to discussing it after the deletion discussion ends -- if it ends with the decision to keep, that is. Professor Penguino ( talk) 23:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Well I'm open to that too. Though I think merging with the Anti-Palestianism article might be better. What do you think about that option? Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 01:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I think it would work. Professor Penguino ( talk) 02:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Powerplay44 and AryKun, what would you think of the possibility of merging this and the Anti-Palestinianism article? Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 08:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I’d be fine with that. Powerplay44 ( talk) 22:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
That link does not work for me. In any case I doubt a case can be made that we can get an article sufficiently differentiated from the Anti-Palestianism one. We currently have two articles about hate against one of the two sides of a conflict. Even if we expand both we will have very similar articles. Only that the Anti-Palestianism can also cover Palestinian Christians who are a small minority while this one can cover non-Palestinian Muslims which will not be the central focus of the article. Now that I think of it maybe a solution could be to merge both into an article called Anti-Palestinianism and Islamophobia during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. If not we're going to have two very interrelated articles with a lot of duplicate info. Three of the six paragraphs (excluding the lead) of this article are already included in the Anti-Palestianism one, and the one about "human animals" could perfectly be included as well. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 20:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Absolutely keep, look Anti-Palestinianism during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and "Islamophobia during the Israel-Hamas war" are two different things. In the entire world, not only the Palestinians but the entire Muslim community is being targeted regarding Palestine. How can Palestinian Muslims represent the Muslims of the whole world? Youknowwhoistheman ( talk) 12:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Most of the article is about Palestinians, most of the hatred is towards Palestinians and it started because of an escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is not a topic separate from Anti-Palestinianism. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 14:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I don’t want to get into the specifics of the war, but there is most definitely a strong and supportive relationship between the Hamas terrorists and many Muslims, as shown by Muslims who acclaim the vicious and immoral atrocities committed by Hamas and openly criticize the Israelis for merely defending their established nation. This proves that Islamophobia and Anti-Palestinianism in this matter are indeed strongly related and can be merged together. Powerplay44 ( talk) 22:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
If most of the article is about Palestinians then it should be merged... Homerethegreat ( talk) 09:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
More news sources use the term Islamophobia than Anti-Palestinianism, so if you want a merge, it should be the other way. Additionally, I would say the two topics are distinct; see for example this source on how the Indian far-right is trying to use the Oct 7 attack to inflame domestic opinion against Indian Muslims. Racists aren't exactly known for their cultural awareness, they'll be racist to whoever they can.
As an addendum, your personal blog post about how most Muslims are supportive of Hamas' war crimes is irrelevant here. They aren't criticizing Israel for "merely defending [it's] established nation", they're criticizing it for killing over 4000 children as if that's going to lead to a permanent peace after the war ends. AryKun ( talk) 17:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
It’s shameful that people who have a differing view from yours are labeled as racists. That aside, it was the Palestinians who incited the violence in Israel, making them consequently responsible for the deaths of Palestinians and Israelis during the war. The best comparison I have is that President Trump is personally held responsible for the January 6 Violent Protests, while those who actually committed crimes are often looked over. If Trump is credited with inciting violence and causing chaos then this should be no different because Palestine also incited violence.
About the actual merge, I’d be absolutely fine with merging it the other way because they are the same issue and there is no need for two separate articles covering the same information and ideas. Powerplay44 ( talk) 22:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I literally linked a source about Indian far-right media cells that "propagate anti-Muslim hatred" in the previous sentence; Islamophobes are racists, just as anti-Semites are racists, and the people the source discusses are both at the same time. We have many sources talking about how different groups are using the war to drum up domestic Islamophobia specifically, even if they don't have a large Palestinian population. Anti-Palestinianism and Islamophobia are distinct issues here, even if the groups perpetuating both overlap somewhat. As for your second point, I don't want to engage because it's irrelevant to the AfD and will just side-track this whole discussion. AryKun ( talk) 07:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I think I understand your reasoning now. My apologies for the statement regarding racism, I must have not seen it in the source. Powerplay44 ( talk) 22:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Easily passes GNG:
 //  Timothy ::  talk  07:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Aside from the question of notability, more discussion is needed on whether this article forks content that could fit better elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 01:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep, with no need to merge. There is sufficient distinction of the topics and sufficient reliable sources for both. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 20:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep: Agree. There seems to be sufficient distinction. If anything, Islamophobia is the more prevalent phenomena globally - one that regularly picks up in relation to Middle East events. Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_November_19&oldid=1187148169"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE