WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2022 APRIL 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 18	April 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

All About Love Foundation

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

Clear violation of WP:NOTINHERITED. The sources provide coverage to this non-notable organization only because of the founder Pooja Hegde but it is nothing outside that. NavjotSR ( talk) 12:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

*Keep: All sources in the article are reliable. They're reliable enough to pass notability - Jomontgeorge ( talk) 12:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC) sock reply

Merge to Pooja Hegde. Recent organization founded by a famous person. Seems to have enough information and sources to justify a paragraph on the subject's article, but notability is not inherited, and sources seem to focus on Hedge, not the org (some don't even mention the foundation's name). Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 14:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Not everything belonging to a "famous person" needs blue link on Wikipedia. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 10:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note I have just blocked Jomontgeorge, who has !voted above, for extensive CU-confirmed sockpuppetry, including through the second account to have worked on this particular article. I will not strike their vote, since I have not been able to tie the accounts back to a blocked master, but don't expect them to engage with this discussion any further. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete It also reeks of WP:COI. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 10:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Gogetair Aviation

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

Company was founded in 2019, and has produced ten "2 seater aircraft". Fails WP:NCORP. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx ( talk) 23:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the

following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Slovenia. Shellwood ( talk) 00:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Only three references, two of them are the company's website itself and the other is YouTube, which is not reliable. -- interstatefive ( talk) - just another roadgeek 00:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP as it stands. - Ahunt ( talk) 00:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt ( talk) 10:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Move to Gogetair G750 and re-purpose. Although most information about this type is only on the company's website, Facebook and YouTube presences, other sites do refer to it and it does appear to be a bona fide aircraft type which is, or has been, in small-scale production. As such, by longstanding consensus of the Aviation WikiProject, it is notable per WP:AIRNOTE and, for a fuller account, WP:NAIR. Even if online RS are hard to find with a search engine, it is sure to appear in reputable directories, national registration databases and the like. Since the company is only notable through its aircraft, it does not deserve an article of its own. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 12:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 EServer.org. Reasonable ATD. Star Mississippi 02:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Geoffrey Sauer

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

Potentially notable associate professor. Been on the cat:nn list since 2010. scope_creep^Talk 14:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Alabama, and Indiana. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect to EServer.org. I don't see any way Sauer could pass WP:NPROF, and my search for GNG-qualifying coverage didn't find much more than a few interview-ish paragraphs here and a handful of passing mentions in the press. A redirect to the EServer article, where he's mentioned, seems like a reasonable alternative to deletion, particularly since he's occasionally referenced in EServer-related press coverage. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails GNG, NPROF, no significant coverage found. Jacona ( talk) 12:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Mississippi Reform Party

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

No evidence of notability independent of the national party. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 14:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Shashank5988 ( talk) 11:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ausar Auset Society. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 03:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Ra Un Nefer Amen

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

Correct me if I'm wrong but WP:BISHOPS #1 suggest that they're notable only if they are a major figure within a major world religion. I would assume that the Ausar Auset Society does not qualify under this category (given the coverage, size of article, and absence from the major religion article). So in addition to the lack of coverage, I'm not sure if this subject is notable. BriefEdits ( talk) 19:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits ( talk) 19:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits ( talk) 19:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits ( talk) 19:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits ( talk) 19:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Merge to Ausar Auset Society. Jahaza ( talk) 20:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment It's not just about the size of the organization, but the profile and function. What the Mormon church calls Bishops are the equivalent of Pastors in Christian churches. FWIW, I agree with the merger, assuming the notability of the society itself can be clearly established. Jclemens ( talk) 20:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment Merging seems alright to me. — BriefEdits ( talk) 15:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 02:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Screen Sharing

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

I don't think this Apple app or feature is notable enough to merit its own article. There is a toggle in system preferences called "Screen Sharing" but a quick search finds articles that discusses not this app but how to screen share in general. If anything this could be merged with Mac OS X Leopard, with this title then redirecting to Desktop sharing. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 23:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. Apple doesn’t promote it by this name, doesn’t document it by this as a proper name, this article is just unneeded Jacona ( talk) 12:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Badnaseeb

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

Fails WP:GNG. Existing sources are mostly prior to release and are as much publicity as anything else. One is an interview. Two sources are basic show information (and the dramas planet has almost no useful information). Nothing to show anything after release. Article was moved from draft by creator, so AFD is the only option at this point. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Montana. Content is under the redirect should someone feel strongly that there's material appropriate for a merger. Star Mississippi 02:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Campus of the University of Montana

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

This article concerns the campus of a university, not the university itself. The campus of the University of Montana is not notable enough or distinct enough from the University of Montana to warrant it's own article, and all information contained within is of very little value. AviarySystem ( talk) 23:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Montana. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Merge to University of Montana. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - as an unnecessary content fork. If there's a need for a reference in the main article for the University's endowment in, perhaps the source for that might be merged, but it's 13 years old, Everything else is self sourced. 174.212.236.66 ( talk) 16:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. No need for a separate article. Jacona ( talk) 12:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Homelessness in the MBTA Subway Station

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

Homelessness in the MBTA Subway Station

There are at least two problems with this article. First, it is an edge case as to whether it satisfies general notability. Second, more seriously, it is a statement of opinion by the author, and as such is a non- neutral point of view. Neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia. The opinion appears to be that housing the homeless will alleviate the problem of homelessness in the subway system, which is probably true but is an opinion. Rewriting this into a neutral discussion of what reliable sources say about homeless in the Boston subway system would not leave much, since the sources do not provide much.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	mbta.com	A history of the Boston transit system	Yes	Not about the subject	Yes	No
2	Boston Globe	Editorial calling for end to homelessness	Yes	Yes	Yes, although a statement of opinion, and so a reliable report of the opinion of the newspaper	No, a primary statement of opinion
3	Boston Herald	About homelessness in the subway system	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
4	Boston Globe	About armrests in middle of subway benches	Yes	No	Yes	Yes

This article was moved to draft space by User:WhoAteMyButter once as not ready for article space (and it was not ready for article space), but was moved back to article space by the author. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Transportation, and Massachusetts. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete: This is primarily a personal persuasive essay, not an encyclopedia article. There's no evidence of notability; these sources strike me more as run-of-the-mill coverage. There's no indication that there's any substantial difference between homelessness on the MBTA and elsewhere in Boston, or between the MBTA and other transit systems. Any relevant information can go in a sentence or three at Homelessness in the United States by state#Massachusetts. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 00:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete: Good grief: Wikipedia is not the editor's personal editorial column. I recommend he start a blog on Wordpress or Blogger. Now with a century's worth of abandoned tunnels and stations (Scollay Square, Adams Square, the Pleasant Street Incline, the old Broadway streetcar tunnel, etc), there's always been a homeless population in the T tunnels, but all the coverage you see about it is an "OMG the troglodytes!" article every few years in the Globe or the Herald. Ravenswing 02:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
- I suspect a school assignment. Uncle G ( talk) 02:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete First of all, "Homeless in the MBTA Subway Station" is a grammatically incorrect title. It implies the article is about one singular subway station. And as has been said above, this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. This calls for WP:TNT at best, but I don't think there's really a notable topic here either. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 13:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete This is just not encyclopedic. I have to laugh at "in Boston in the winter it easily gets below freezing during the day and especially at night." In Boston in the winter there are times it does not get above freezing at all for at least multiple days, if not longer. The sentence misstates the issue. However I have to agree that "oh the troglodytes" articles rarely give us a good picture and are not the type of sources actual good encyclopedic articles can be built on. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Those articles follow a general pattern: (a) "Did you know that there are long-abandoned subway tunnels and sections under Boston?" (b) "HOMELESS people sleep in them!" (c) "Isn't it awful/dangerous/depressing?", and concluding with (d) "Gosh, the MBTA/police/National Guard/priests of Cthulhu should chase them out of there, because reasons!!" Ravenswing 23:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Tartar Torte 16:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete and this user should check WP:TEAHOUSE for assistance and clarification. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 08:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Sophia A. Nelson

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

The page was created by Snelson67 ( talk · contribs) and has been edited by Iamsophianelson ( talk · contribs): those usernames suggest that she's edited her own page over the course of many years. The edit description on the single edit made by 73.31.220.55 ( talk · contribs) also indicates that was her, and there may be other IP edits that belong to her. This seems like brazen self-promotion. Apocheir ( talk) 22:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Apocheir ( talk) 22:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Journalism, Law, Politics, Africa, Germany, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 23:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Of course she fails NPOL. But she passes WP:GNG and maybe WP:NAUTHOR. See South Florida Sun Sentinel, Essence, CNN, and Inside Higher Ed. pburka ( talk) 00:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Pburka: The South Florida Sun Sentinel source is clearly not about her.... AusLondonder ( talk) 17:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. Possible self-promotion is not reason to delete the article. Plainly passes WP:GNG with significant secondary source coverage for many years (in addition to those listed above): NY Times, Fox News, CBS Philadelphia, NY Post. This is an example of how we need to be careful before reflexively sending pages about people who are underrepresented on Wikipedia to AfD. agtx 15:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The New York Post source is hardly useful. Firstly, per WP:NYPOST but also because it's just about her allegedly making homophobic posts online. Not really something to demonstrate notability. The Fox News source is frankly awful. How could that even be used for a BLP? The New York Times source is routine coverage about her candidacy. AusLondonder ( talk) 17:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Agree that the Fox News source is horrible, but it is an entire story regarding a purported controversy about her. I'm not saying it should be cited in the article. I'm saying it's evidence of her notability. The NYT article is a detailed profile about her that appeared in a paper of record, not a passing mention and not something that is afforded to every candidate for whatever office. Nevertheless, there are others:

Rothschild, B. S. (2011, May 16). Black women's journey examined. Courier Post https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/black-womens-journey-examined/docview/866991334/se-2?accountid=3328;
Jones, J. (2012, Feb). Black women still feel defined by myths. Michigan Chronicle https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/black-women-still-feel-defined-myths/docview/928451872/se-2?accountid=3328;
Wellington, Elizabeth. "In 'Black Woman Redefined,' author calls out her sisters". Philadelphia Inquirer.

I don't think this should really be in serious question. agtx 15:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The NY Times blurb is clearly local coverage. We'd discount that for any city in the world. Can't look at the proquest articles, the Inquirer might be okay from a book point of view. SportingFlyer T· C 15:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

We don't automatically discount "local coverage" in a locale that's home to 20 million people, and I'd be interested in seeing a policy or guideline that says otherwise. pburka ( talk) 16:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Blurb? No, a blurb is a few paragraphs. This is a full article that (per text at the end of the article) appeared in the National Edition of the paper. agtx 13:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

edit conflict - will review new sources She's clearly not notable as a politician and the article is not only self-promotional but appears to have been started as an autobiography. Whether she passes WP:NAUTHOR is difficult to say as the interviews are with her and don't appear to be the normal book reviews. Decent amount of coverage, but it isn't really great coverage. Leaning delete unless articles about her book specifically can be found. SportingFlyer T· C 15:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The Courier Post article is about the book. It's temporarily available here solely for the purposes of this academic discussion. agtx 13:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. Others have pointed out she passes WP:GNG; and the article's creator is not relevant to deletion discussions, although it definitely needs to be reviewed by independent editors for NPOV. -- WestCD ( talk) 02:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn. ✗ plicit 23:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Stephen Dempster

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

I found no significant coverage for this professor. Fails WP:PROF. SL93 ( talk) 22:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Ontario. SL93 ( talk) 22:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Passes WP:PROF #5 as holding a named chair, but also #1: 290 cites for his major book in this field demonstrates "significant impact in their scholarly discipline". St Anselm ( talk) 00:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

As per what I thought and David Eppstein said in the edit history for #5, it seems that it would matter if he was full level and not an associate professor. I would like more opinions if cites for one book is all we're going by for notability. SL93 ( talk) 00:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
- Yes, I don't think named associate professorships count towards #C5. This doesn't affect the argument based on #C1, of course. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: the named chair was a five year appointment; he was succeeded by Keith Bodner. Dempster became a full professor and retired last year. He was made professor emeritus, itself a significant achievement, apparently. [1] St Anselm ( talk) 05:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: regarding WP:PROF #1, Paul R. House's essay "God’s Design and Postmodernism: Recent Approaches to Old Testament Theology" has a section on Dempster. [2] St Anselm ( talk) 06:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I agree that the subject does not pass WP:PROF#C5, but he may well pass other notability criteria. There are reviews of his work at [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Phil Bridger ( talk) 10:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 00:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep as he became a full professor and his book has multiple reviews in reliable sources as identified above so passes WP:PROF im ny view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Withdraw: I withdraw based on the reviews. SL93 ( talk) 01:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as not notable. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Hemant Tantia

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG. TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. No evidence of meeting notability guidelines whatsoever. The claim for his music being "immensely popular" is cited to a Youtube video with 325 views... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete I agree with the nominator and with AndyTheGrump. This individual does not meet notability requirements. -- VViking_Talk
Edits 22:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Not notable. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - strained self-promotion. Don't know what possessed me to mark this as reviewed back in the day. Let's call it juvenile folly :p -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 08:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete, in no way notable. Maria Gemmi ( talk) 15:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per everyone's sentiments above. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 19:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. not doing another relist for no input. No objection to a re-nom when you think input might be forthcoming. Star Mississippi 02:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Detective Boomrah

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

Fails WP:NFILM. Lack WP:NFSOURCES, WP:NFOE. Possible WP:COI/ WP:UPE. The creator IndaneLove is also involved in creating a page for the director of this film/web series which itself lack notability. This is a well-cordinated effort. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens ( talk) 07:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Hatchens It’s a fictional character not a film.

IndaneLove ( talk) 07:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 07:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 07:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: @ Hatchens - "Sudhanshu has directed a web series titled Detective Boomrah wherein he also played the titular role" - So, we don't have a wikipedia page for the film/webseries... but we have the page for the fictional character? Kindly explain! - Hatchens ( talk) 08:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Hatchens, as i checked on google and found that detective boomrah (web series) is based on a fictional character of Sudhanshu rai named Detective Boomrah. and found reliable coverage about this character so i created this article and i also thought about creating article on the web series and i am collecting details about the web series from the google. IndaneLove ( talk) 08:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I've asked for some help looking over the sources and whatnot on the India WikiProject. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the article is about a fictional character. It is not about a film.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 21:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non-notable, lacking sources. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Tim McCoy and The Papercuts

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. PepperBeast (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete I can't find anything beyond the local newspaper.-- Jahaza ( talk) 23:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Lack of other sources. Sorry Tim. Chumpih ^t 09:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails WP:NPOL, inadequately sourced per discussion. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Blane Vick

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

Non-notable politician. PepperBeast (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Georgia (U.S. state). PepperBeast (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. Local politician fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 23:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability, per WP: GNG. Article could use some grammar/sentence structure improvements if elected to stay in mainspace. NiklausGerard ( talk) 02:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete even if he had won the county level race he would not be for sure notable, loosing in it basically makes him by definition non-notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:NPOL and there isn't anything in terms of referencing to indicate a GNG pass. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 15:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not notable per WP:NAIRPORT. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Chadwick Airport

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

AFD in 2008 was kept based on the falsehood that all airports are inherently notable. To even call this an "airport" is a stretch: it's just a strip of grass where a small plane can land in someone's (Mr. Edward Chadwick's) backyard! There is no public access and no substantive sources to warrant an article. Reywas92^Talk 20:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Oregon. Reywas92^Talk 20:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete not even remotely close to being notable. Not every place that has in some way a name is notable, especially when it is a private and not a public place. What next, will we create articles on every driveway? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Airports are not inherently notable. Per WP:NAIRPORT "The basic notability requirement still applies. Significant, independent and reliable sources specifically about the airport must exist." Fails WP:SIGCOV. AusLondonder ( talk) 02:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Run-of-the-mill private airport lacking zero notability on anything but a local level, if that. TH1980 ( talk) 04:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Closer (2021 film). Star Mississippi 02:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Daphne Dorman

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

The subject does not seem to be notable for a standalone article. Notability seems to be tied to a single event, namely, The Closer (2021 film) controversy. MarioGom ( talk) 20:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. MarioGom ( talk) 20:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:BIO1E and WP:GNG. Would suggest merge but subject is already covered in appropriate depth in The Closer (2021 film). NiklausGerard ( talk) 02:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I think her suicide and the controversy around it, especially after The Closer, are enough to warrant a Keep (see WP:NOTBLP1E) or at least a Merge into The Closer. Although the article definitely needs expanding if kept, and I'll add it to my to do list. -- WestCD ( talk) 01:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
- A merge works just fine for me, as that seems to be what people are leaning towards, and I don't have too much time to work on it right now anyway. -- WestCD ( talk) 01:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Merge the content in to The Closer (2021 film). The content there would do well to be enhanced. Chumpih ^t 09:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Merge into The Closer (2021 film). I looked for sources covering Dorman prior to her mention in Sticks & Stones. She gets a minor mention in this 2017 USA Today piece describing her move into the tech industry. She is covered similarly in a USA Today listicle from the same day. The latter was syndicated into a lot of local newspapers like this one. I'm not sure much more than a line of encyclopedic content could be gleaned from that batch of coverage, and likely not even that much.
And then there are the oodles of sources about her mentions in Chappelle's specials. I think that content is best summarized in the articles about those specials. To be clear, I think she meets GNG, but that WP:PAGEDECIDE applies. The info we have on here is best presented in the context of Chappelle's shows, context being the key point in two of PAGEDECIDE's critical questions. The third, about what sourcing is available, further favors a merge. Mention of Dorman this calendar year has been negligible, and always centered on coverage of Chappelle. Barring any major shifts in the sources, an article on Dorman is likely to be stuck as a perma-stub. In looking for sources, I used Google News and Newspapers.com. If someone uses other methods and finds sources that add new information, I'd gladly change my vote. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 18:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Students are welcome to work on this in draft space, and that's where the content will be momentarily. If someone thinks this is worthy of a redirect to Leah_Thomas_(ecofeminist) or environmental justice, feel free. Star Mississippi 02:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Intersectional environmentalism

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

This article is currently an WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH mess that suffers from deficient sourcing. Those sources include a blog run by a bank, a group blog, a scholarly work that does not mention environmentalism at all, a deadlink to what appears to be the "about us" page of a not-for-profit corporation run by Leah Thomas, an op-ed by Leah Thomas in a publication that doesn't even claim to be a news organization, and an op-ed by Leah Thomas in Marie Claire. My search for other information found a first-person interview with Leah Thomas published in The Cut, an interview with Thomas in a travel magazine, a popular press book by Leah Thomas, a brief review of that book by National Catholic Reporter, an op-ed by Leah Thomas in Teen Vogue, an ecotextile trade publication that does little more than name-check the topic, another op-ed by Leah Thomas (in Vogue), a piece from DW that more or less covers the topic as a brand of Environmental Justice, a transcript of a WaPo-hosted panel that covers it withing the context of environmental justice (Thomas is on the panel), an interview with Leah Thomas that describes intersectional environmentalism as being environmental justice, and a handful of college newspaper viewpoints and stories. In other words, the topic of intersectional environmentalism doesn't actually appear to be independently notable from the topic of environmental justice; the two appear to be framed as synonyms even by those who seek to promote the term. At most, this term appears to be an alternative name to environmental justice that was proposed by a single activist.

Since the content of the current page is an OR/SYNTH mess and the topic is not independently notable of environmental justice, I propose that this be redirected to environmental justice. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 19:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Law, Politics, Science, and Environment. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 19:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

As a friendly note for those doing google searches, the Leah Thomas who is the environmentalist that coined the phrase is not Lia Thomas and is not the cyclist who currently occupies the Leah Thomas page. Sourcing is probably enough to get the environmentalist a page, but I don't think the same can be said for this neologism. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 19:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Update: Leah Thomas (ecofeminist) is now a page. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 20:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for creating the Leah Thomas (ecofeminist) page! The current intersectional environmentalism page represents student work that is very much in progress. Due to the debate around this page, I would suggest giving the class a few more weeks, however then revisiting the discussion to merge with Environmental justice, or merge with the new page for Leah Thomas. Littlesalmon ( talk) 21:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect A merge of some content about intersectionality would be relevant for Environmental justice, but this is not ready for a stand-alone article. I see that last month WikiDan61 appropriately removed more than half of the page for redundancy and content irrelevant to either environmentalism or intersectionality. Still, there is content irrelevant to environmentalism like "High Risk jobs are often held by people who are immigrants especially undocumented ones" with an unrelated source. I would encourage Littlesalmon and other course instructors to create new articles as WP:Drafts. Reywas92^Talk 20:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect and Draftify: as the article currently stands, it is not ready for publication. It is a WikiEd project, but since my original merge proposal and removal of blatantly irrelevant material, I have seen little work by the class participants or anyone else to improve it. I have already mentioned to Littlesalmon that the class project would have been better created in the draft space. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect Per Reywas92. Thriley ( talk) 21:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Subject of scholarly research.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]

References

^ Amorim-Maia, Ana T.; Anguelovski, Isabelle; Chu, Eric; Connolly, James (January 2022). "Intersectional climate justice: A conceptual pathway for bridging adaptation planning, transformative action, and social equity". Urban Climate. 41: 101053. doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2021.101053.
^ Ramsay, Adam (2014). "My environmentalism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit". OpenDemocracy. ProQuest 1509705243.
^ Vaughn, Sarah E.; Guarasci, Bridget; Moore, Amelia (21 October 2021). "Intersectional Ecologies: Reimagining Anthropology and Environment". Annual Review of Anthropology. 50 (1): 275–290. doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110241.
^ McKee, Emily (March 2021). "Divergent visions: Intersectional water advocacy in Palestine". Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space. 4 (1): 43–64. doi: 10.1177/2514848620909386.
^ Connors, Sean P; Seelinger, Roberta Trites (2021). ""I'd Become a Part of a System": Examining Intersectional Environmentalism in Literature for Young Readers". Journal of Children's Literature. 47 (1): 73–83. ProQuest 2575545202.
^ Thompson-Hall, Mary; Carr, Edward R.; Pascual, Unai (December 2016). "Enhancing and expanding intersectional research for climate change adaptation in agrarian settings". Ambio. 45 (S3): 373–382. doi: 10.1007/s13280-016-0827-0.
^ Hathaway, Julia Robertson (2 January 2020). "Climate Change, the Intersectional Imperative, and the Opportunity of the Green New Deal". Environmental Communication. 14 (1): 13–22. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2019.1629977.
^ Spears, Ellen Griffith (2020). "Intersectional Activism and Climate Justice (2001–Present)". Rethinking the American environmental movement post-1945. New York, NY: Routledge. pp. 197–235. ISBN 9780203081693.
^ Kings, A E (2017). "Intersectionality and the Changing Face of Ecofeminism". Ethics and the Environment. 22 (1): 63. doi: 10.2979/ethicsenviro.22.1.04.
^ James, Dana; Mack, Trevor (25 December 2020). "Toward an ethics of decolonizing allyship in climate organizing: reflections on Extinction Rebellion Vancouver". Journal of Human Rights and the Environment. 11 (3): 32–53. doi: 10.4337/jhre.2020.03.02.
^ Ducre, Kishi Animashaun (2 January 2018). "The Black feminist spatial imagination and an intersectional environmental justice". Environmental Sociology. 4 (1): 22–35. doi: 10.1080/23251042.2018.1426089.
^ Nixon, Rob (2011). Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Harvard University Press. pp. 138–142. ISBN 978-0-674-04930-7.

Clean up is all that is required and a good faith reminder of WP:NEXIST. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 02:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The citations presented above appear don't appear to demonstrate that the topic of is covered significantly.

The first "source" mentions "intersectional environmentalism" a whopping one time—the title of a parenthetical citation.
The second source that allegedly reflects "scholarly research" is an op-ed in OpenDemocracy. This is an opinion piece, not a piece of scholarly literature.
The third "source" is an anthropological review of "intersectional ecologies", which is a different topic altogether that focuses on the intersection of anthropology and ecology.
The fourth "source" does not so much mention the term "intersectional environmentalism". In fact, it's explicitly a paper about environmental justice in Palestine, which helps to support the notion that the redirect target makes sense.
The fifth source addresses the topic, although it's published in the Journal of Children's Literature which appears to be well out-of-field given that it's published by and English teacher's association.
The sixth "source" does not so much as mention the term "intersectional environmentalism", let alone cover it significantly.
The seventh "source" likewise does not so much as mention the term "intersectional environmentalism".
I lack full access to the eighth source, but the snippets I can pull out from google scholar don't appear to include the phrase "intersectional environmentalism".
The ninth "source" does not so much as mention the term "intersectional environmentalism".
The tenth "source" does not so much as mention the term "intersectional environmentalism".
The eleventh "source" does not so much as mention the term "intersectional environmentalism". It's plainly a paper that's about environmental justice that uses the lens of intersectionality, but this isn't WP:SIGCOV of the topic at hand.
The twelfth source would at first appear to cover the concept in the context of the Green Belt Movement within its fourth chapter. But what the book is describing is something that's different from the intersectional environmentalism of Leah Thomas—the book is writing about a political strategy applied in Kenya, not a theory of justice. In other words, there are multiple topics with the same name.

While I reserve judgement on the eighth source (I'll need to head to a library), the whole remainder of the sources either don't cover the topic significantly or are written in a journal (one that focuses on kid's books) that's not reliable in this context (intersectional environmentalism). As such, WP:GNG is not met even if the sole source I cannot access were to cover this topic significantly. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 05:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

This response conflates methods of assessing a biography with that of a concept; it's not possible to analyse the subject matter here akin to a BLP or with the use of CTRL+F. I'll use somewhat simplified dichotomies to illustrate, but I believe they are useful, nevertheless. We differentiate forms of environmentalism (eg Free-market environmentalism) as the means for achieving sustainability. There is a conceptual difference between environmentalism and sustainability, the former seeking the latter. We can differentiate between environmental justice and the means by which it is done, eg intersectional environmentalism or, purely for argument's sake, free-market environmentalism. This is similar to how one conceptually differentiates socialism from socialist movements, feminism from feminist movements. By definition, intersectional environmentalism is about movements, tactics, and strategy, not about end states, ie environmental justice. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 12:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Goldsztajn:, you may have a point here (the means differs from the goal), but that doesn't change the need for notability, as demonstrated by significant coverage from sources independent of the movement. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect and Draftify per Reywas92 and WikiDan61. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk) 20:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Cambridgeshire derby

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

Notability. Just another local rivalry of very little interest or importance. TheLongTone ( talk) 12:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Shellwood ( talk) 13:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Weak keep Of course there is evidence of notability, what a dumb statement above. Has WP:BEFORE been done? it's a pretty tame derby, but one non-the-less, lots of sources online. [8], [9] and more. Govvy ( talk) 20:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Oh puh-lease. Two articles in local papers. And sports journalists are notorious for their love of cliche. TheLongTone ( talk) 11:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply

There's less on this derby than the other one up for nomination and the sources in the article aren't great for showing a rivalry, but they also haven't been in the same league during the recent internet era, and Cambridge has more rivalry articles up than Peterborough. Clearly a rivalry, probably passes WP:GNG, but probably needs another couple (older?) sources to comfortably clear the bar. SportingFlyer T· C 19:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep and develop. The problem is that the number of league meetings between the two is relatively low compared with longer-standing derbies. But, these are two significant EFL clubs and the rivalry does exist. Better sourcing is needed, I agree. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 09:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in some form or another. Even most delete-!votes acknowledge that the topic probably should be mentioned in Assange's article or another place, so outright deletion is out of the question. There is no clear consensus whether the article should survive as a stand-alone article or be merged and redirected somewhere else but this can be discussed on the talk page. Regards So Why 08:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

AssangeDAO

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

While Julian Assange is unquestionably notable, AssangeDAO is not. The quality references in this piece (CBS, BBC, etc.) are only used to support statements about Assange, not about the DAO. Those that write about the DAO are a mix of poor-quality sources (crypto blogs like CoinDesk and Coin Rivet), an interview with an artist that briefly mentions the DAO, and one decent source (Fortune). At the very most this justifies a brief mention in Julian Assange, though I'm not convinced the Fortune source is enough to justify even that. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Popular culture, and Computing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. The article subject itself, as opposed to the individuals involved, does not meet SIGCOV. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment I removed the coinrivet and coindesk sources from the article, there is a consensus not to use crypto sources on all cyrpto articles. After that it still seems half a dozen sources remain (I didn't look to see if they were simply passing mention). Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 22:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: Strictly for my own edification, could you please link to the page where formal consensus was achieved not to use crypto sources on all crypto articles? I'd find that discussion most helpful. Thank you. Rinpoach ( talk) 15:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Sure, we are using this Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_3#RfC_to_tighten_sourcing_on_this_article and WP:GS/Crypto. These two have greatly clamped down on the rampant WP:PROMO that is often WP:COI related on crypto articles. There might be another RFC or discussion that was done relating to coindesk or something like that at RSN. Its been a couple of years since this consensus started. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 20:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. Since nomination at 18:33, 19 April 2022, two of the original references (CoinDesk and Coin Rivet) have been removed. They have been replaced by four references to non-crypto sources: Business Insider, Reuters, and two separate citations to Wired. I hope editors will deem this sufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV. And at the risk of invoking WP:WHATABOUT, I would be remiss to not point out that AssangeDAO surpassed ConstitutionDAO in amount raised, and unlike its predecessor actually succeeded in purchasing the item upon which it bid. If ConstitutionDAO is notable enough for its own Wikipedia page, surely AssangeDAO is, too. Rinpoach ( talk) 00:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Weak keep or merge. There is some coverage but it's pretty much news about one event. I think it's borderline, but a merge might be best for now. If the DAO surives and is covered again in some other capacity, then it would likely deserve a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 09:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Piotrus: Respectfully, I draw your attention to ConstitutionDAO, which is notable only for a single event and did not survive the failure to achieve its sole purpose. By contrast, AssangeDAO scored a spectacular success in raising a record amount of funds, with which it achieved their initial goal. As shown by the group's active official website, Discord, Twitter (with 19.3K followers), and Substack presence, AssangeDAO survives as members discuss how to continue the organization's broader mission "to inspire a powerful solidarity network and fight for the freedom of Julian Assange." As for your suggestion of a merge, I presume you mean merging into the Julian Assange BLP. Given the ongoing resistance of involved editors to expand that voluminous page even slightly, a merge proposal is almost certainly doomed. Rinpoach ( talk) 15:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Selectively merge to a brief mention in Julian Assange, as suggested by the nominator and echoed by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Decentralized autonomous organization could also be a viable merge target. If AssangeDAO is a one-off event with no lasting influence or sustained interest, then we can't justify an article; if it goes anywhere, it belongs in context rather than isolation. Either way, a stand-alone article isn't justifiable. Pointing to ConstitutionDAO is just WP:WAX; arguably, that page only exists because nobody has cared to put it up for deletion or merging. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ XOR'easter: AssangeDAO is already included in the Assange BLP, as a 2-sentence paragraph at the end of subsection 5.6 Appeal and other developments. If you are suggesting that involved editors would agree to expand that paragraph, I respectfully submit you are mistaken. AssangeDAO is also already listed at Decentralized autonomous organization. As for ConstitutionDAO, I agree that given the standard set above by GorillaWarfare in nominating AssangeDAO for deletion, she or you or another user ought to likewise nominate ConstitutionDAO for deletion. We should not be applying a double standard here. Rinpoach ( talk) 16:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete as spam, probably salt. Artw ( talk) 16:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep The article has more sources than some of the other crypto articles we have btw. I dont think merge to the Assange article is a good idea either, that article is practically a warzone with political editors. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 21:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I removed weak to just regular keep after seeing comments of Duckmather below. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 04:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete agree w/ nominator, per WP:GNG. The topic is does not see coverage beyond passing mention in any of the cited sources -- Wired ("Assange's NFT Clock Sale Rides a Wave of DAO Crowdfunding") & Business Insider are probably the best things here but are pretty limited in their coverage, they don't make a clear case for general notability. Following WP:THREE in my assessment here. SiliconRed (he/him) ( talk) 15:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep searching for WP refs brings up lots of sources: Wired, Reuters (which also happens to be ref #2), a brief mention in The Guardian, and two articles in Yahoo Finance that are quite in-depth. As for refs already listed: #1 is quite in-depth, #2 is already mentioned, #3-7 are background info (discussed by nom), #8 gives a single-sentence mention to AssangeDAO, and #9 looks pretty in-depth too. Counting #1, #2, #9, and the three others I found, this gives six detailed sources on AssangeDAO - much more than enough to pass WP:GNG. Duckmather ( talk) 03:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete I agree with nom. Looking at some of Duckmather's evidence, some of the sources are mere namedrops (e.g. The Guardian) and don't demonstrate GNG, and others don't show a real meaning/notability to this external to Assange, which means for presentational reasons this would be best covered in Assange's article. To be clear, I think the low bar of GNG is met, but meeting GNG doesn't guarantee standalone articles, and I think this particular subject matter is probably better discussed in Assange's article. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete This was a flash in the pan that received the brief flurry of electronic media time and that goes with anything on NFTs, Assange, anit-government-intelligence, etc. etc. Like all such trivia, it's generated hysteria among the fans and faithful without any ongoing mainstream significance. There was no substantial and reliably verified information as to the details of this DAO other than the somewhat dubious claim that it was solely to benefit Assange. The amount of money is trivial in the world of NFTs. WP is not an indiscriminate compilation of news and recent events. It is UNDUE for the Assange BLP, which already contains too much scrapbook-like fan coverage of minor details and fleeting mentions of Assange. If the DAO is demonstrated to fit WP criteria for either significance (article content) or notability (article subject) we can always reconsider at such time. SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep This is a historically significant article. It is the first time that I know of that a crypto project has been used in relation to defending the right to freedom of expression, and justice of a human rights defender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.36.208 ( talk) 06:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply
And has your opinion been cited by a mainstream reliable source publication, or is this its only appearance? SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The historic nature of AssangeDAO, as cited by mainstream reliable sources, is not due to its primacy but to what Business Insider called "the stunning amount generated by over 10,000 contributors," which Fortune reported "smashes Juicebox's previous fundraising record from ConstitutionDAO." Rinpoach ( talk) 05:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging it can be handled editorially Star Mississippi 02:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory

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

The former was de-prodded with the nonsensical edit summary "Please consider whether you could improve the article rather than deleting it". But I found literally nothing in an extensive WP:BEFORE. I decided to bundle the sister article as well for identical reasons. These existed, but there is literally nothing to say about them other than pages and pages of off-topic guff without a single source in sight. These articles have been stinking up Wikipedia for TWELVE YEARS without anyone even proving that a source could possibly exist, so it's time to nuke them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 23:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 23:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 23:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Proof: The only results on Newspapers.com for "Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory" when searching Pennsylvania newspapers are classifieds or similar ads for jobs at the plant. The same is true of "Westinghouse Advanced Energy Systems Division", except for a couple police blotter entries which are still not reliable coverage. GBooks yields a couple of internal documents for the laboratory along with some fleeting mentions of it existing, but those are not enough either. Exactly what I'm supposed to improve the article with is a mystery. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 23:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma ( talk) 00:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep There is no doubt this was a real thing. The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information has an article about them at https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/4206644 And a newspaper.com search shows 775 Matches for "Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory". When I searched for it without the word "interview" appearing [10] that cut out the advertisements for working there, and showed 365 Matches. Mostly just minor mentions about things going on there, a long article about artists who work there doing artwork for them, and obituaries of people who worked there. Anyway, the American government paid them to build nuclear powered spaceships there, and they do get mentioned in a lot of different newspapers in articles, not just ads. I'd say that's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 00:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC) reply

"There is no doubt this was a real thing." That's not in question. And what part of WP:GNG do they meet in your mind? You flat out admitted all you could find was "minor mentions". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 00:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Merge Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory into Westinghouse Advanced Energy Systems Division, as the former became the latter in 1976.^[1] Significant coverage is fairly easy to find.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ Jr. Willis L. Shirk (2018). A History of the Atomic Space Age and Its Implications for the Future. Dog Ear Publishing. pp. 71–86. ISBN 9781457561450.
^ United States Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (1946). Hearings and Reports on Atomic Energy (Report). Vol. 86. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 103.
^ United States Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (1974). AEC Authorizing Legislation, Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Legislation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States ... Congress ... Session on AEC Autorizing Legislation · Part 4. U.S. Government Printing Office. pp. 2401–2403.
^ United States House Committee on Appropriations (1963). Independent Offices Appropriations for 1964, Hearings Before a Subcommittee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Eighty-eighth Congress, First Session · Volume 20, Part 3 (Report). U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 474.
^ United States Atomic Energy Commission (1971). The Nuclear Industry. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 128.
^ "Sunshine into electricity". Popular Science. April 1981. pp. 76–79.

SailingInABathTub ( talk) 01:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC) reply

So those sources are just going to add themselves now, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 02:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC) reply

If you want it done, do it yourself. You have so much time to around trying to delete articles, why not spend some time actually working on some instead. Dream Focus 02:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after an inappropriate early close by the nominator. [11]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 09:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment I don't think my merge was out of place. It's clear they're notable and both articles are about different incarnations of the same building, so a withdrawal and merge seemed like a reasonable choice. Nor do I think a relist was needed when I was clearly making an attempt to withdraw. That said, I'll let the discussion run its course. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 19:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

You can withdraw your nomination, but that doesn't mean the discussion automatically ends. See WP:EARLY. –  Joe ( talk) 07:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging/redirecting/refocusing/renaming can and should be discussed outside AFD. So Why 08:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Battle of Slavutych

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

Largely duplicated the material in Battle of Chernobyl. The town is just a base for workers from the plant. It's essentially the same battle. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I support deleting this page and moving any relevant and sourced information to Slavutych. There was nowhere near enough fighting or sourceable events to merit an individual page, and it was not a battle. Sredmash ( talk) 12:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Merge to Battle of Chernobyl. Mr.User200 ( talk) 14:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply

However this page should not be merged with Battle of Chernobyl because the events are completely separate both geographically and chronologically. Slavutych was only attacked a month after the (very limited) fighting in Chernobyl. I also think that the Chernobyl "battle" article should be deleted or at least renamed. Sredmash ( talk) 12:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose. The Battle of Chernobyl (2022) was not a battle, no (or very few) shots were fired, so that article is at the wrong title for a start and I'm not sure it is even notable enough for an article all things considered. Also, the events at Chernobyl and Slavutych occurred at entirely different times, so cannot be considered to be the same battle regardless. The content here seems to be notable enough to merit its own article as it is, but could do with expanding with additional English language sources, as I copied the base text from Ukrainian Wikipedia and used their sources as a starting point. Buttons0603 ( talk) 15:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment furthermore to this, I have just removed the content about Slavutych from the Battle of Chernobyl article, as it seems to have been copied and pasted directly from Battle of Slavutych at some point and shouldn't have been in the Chernobyl article in the first place. So that removes the duplication of content issue across articles. I've also requested a page move regarding the currently problematic Battle of Chernobyl article title. Buttons0603 ( talk) 15:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose - As Buttons0603 correctly pointed out, these were different events. The current article is large enough to warrant its own existence - not due to the battle, however, but the civilian resistance. Perhaps it might be better to rename the article - "Occupation of Slavutych", for example, and focus more on the notable civil events instead of the short fighting phase. Applodion ( talk) 21:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 4. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: I have no opinion as I'm not sufficiently convinced for or against the article, but I will note that Slavutych is relatively far from Chernobyl ( G maps), so a merge or re-target there is not preferred. Curbon7 ( talk) 18:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 21:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose: As has been pointed out, these two events were not co-located in time or space, and the focus of the two articles is different. I would approve renaming this page to "Occupation of Slavutych" as Applodion suggested, as well as SEE ALSO links among the Slavutych, Battle of Chernobyl, and "Occupation of Slavutych" pages. Radzy0 ( talk) 19:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

ValidSoft

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

Spammy article about a company that does not appear to meet WP:NCORP sourcing. It was soft deleted following a low-participation AfD discussion in 2021, and then undeleted upon the request of an SPA who claimed that there were new citation to prove its notability, but the article is still supported by the same four references that supported the deleted version - nothing new has been forthcoming. These are: a blog run by an affiliated company, a deadlink to a (presumably self-authored) profile on Bloomberg, another blog by an affiliated company, and a press release - nothing at all that is independent, reliable and secondary. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and United Kingdom. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Language like "world leader of solutions" was clearly written by a marketing person, pure promotion. W Nowicki ( talk) 20:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: I have opened an SPI on the three users who recently made the same revisions within an hour: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Littlepeach1. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 21:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: IP 2605:A601:A3A9:A400:A126:5DAE:7CFC:98A0 has just removed the AfD notice on the page while discussion is still ongoing. I've put it back. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 16:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Also note that User talk:Littlepeach1 attempted to delete a portion of the first AfD discussion. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 15:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete No coverage in reliable sources. If the company was indeed a "world-leader" I would expect to see a bit more coverage. Simply spam. AusLondonder ( talk) 13:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete: As the nomination says, the current references are weak, and fall far short of demonstrating encyclopaedic notability. Searches find recent announcement-driven coverage of an appointment [12],but that falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. The firm is also among the vendors mentioned in a recent sector report by Opus Research [13] (with whom the company had previously jointly published a study: [14]) but I don't see these as sufficient to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD ( talk) 17:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete None of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 23:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Will Ingwersen

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

We have no sources about him, just the fact that a book he wrote got published. My searches turned up no sources about him, other than brief mentions that basically amounted to adds for his books and primary sources. So I found some transcripts of statements he made, but transcripts of statements are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notablity. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United Kingdom. Shellwood ( talk) 16:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment - The article is in awful shape however I'm getting very different results than the nominator in a BEFORE search. Google Books has multiple hits including these descriptions of him: “Will Ingwersen, who was one of England’s foremost authorities on alpine plants….” Page 99-100 in the book Hidcote:The Making of a Garden, Ethne Clarke 2009, Norton & Co. Publ. [15] and...“Will Ingwersen, the great plants man and horticultural journalist…." In The Surprising Life of Constance Spry, by Sue Shepard 2010, Pan Macmillian pub. and...“Will Ingwersen is the author of The Manual of Alpine Plants, Classic Garden Plants, Rock Garden and Alpine Plants and The Dianthus and has written many articles for Horticultural Magazines and Bulletins of specialist Societies….” Page 146 of Guide to the Specialist Nurseries and Garden Suppliers of Britain and Ireland. Books he wrote that are cited by others: [16]. He was a member of the Royal Horticultural Society, NYT mention: [17] He later became Vice President of the RHS. The Chicago Tribune calls him: “one of Britain’s most honored gardeners” [18] He had an obituary in the London Times [19] and one in The Guardian [20] (not sure whether these links are clickable w/o logging into Library, sorry). A review of his book The Dianthus here: [21]; a review of his book Alpines here: [22]. It seems quite likely that he might meet both WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR, but I'll hold off on !voting for a bit to further investigate to see if I can find the full text of the two obituaries and to see what other editors may find. Netherzone ( talk) 17:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. I pulled the Times, Guardian, and Telegraph obituaries. Each was full length and went into some detail about his life and career. It looks pretty slam dunk to me. Atchom ( talk) 01:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The Dictionary Of British And Irish Botantists And Horticulturalists also lists an Independent obituary and another in a horticultural journal. Atchom ( talk) 01:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR per the sources in my comment above and the additional sources found by Atchom, the entry on Ingwersen in the Dictionary of British and Irish Botanists and Horticulturists means he also meets WP:ANYBIO. Netherzone ( talk) 01:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep as while the article needs work, Ingwersen passes NAUTHOR and probably GNG. His work on Alpine plants is all over google books. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Obituaries in three major newspapers. WP:CONSENSUS is clearly that we keep based on this. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Elden Ring. Star Mississippi 02:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

let_me_solo_her

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

Reasons for deletion: A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events), fails Notability test.} Rekiinom ( talk) 16:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

Dont 78.16.143.86 ( talk) 18:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

+1 Contripirate ( talk) 18:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Article clearly does not meet Wikipedia standards for Notable People. Contripirate ( talk) 18:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment I actually went on this article a few days ago, wondering if I should improve it or have it tagged for deletion. I think that the article has issues relating to tone. Now, I have a question. @ Rekiinom: and @ Contripirate: if your accounts are new, how did you find articles for deletion? LPS and MLP Fan ( Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 18:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Google Rekiinom ( talk) 20:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Merge - This strikes me as similar to the Luigi Death Stare meme - there's no shortage of reliable sources covering it...but there's also very little of substance to be said, and is probably better as a small section/paragraph in the parent article ( Elden Ring). Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Merge to Elden Ring in line with Sergecross73's comment. -- ferret ( talk) 19:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Merge to Elden Ring. This meme is not notable beyond the general coverage of Elden Ring. This player being involved in an event that was covered by news outlets is part of the general news coverage of the game and so should be included on that page. WP:NOTWHOSWHO In addition, a lot of the information here is either unsourced or seemingly original research (or both). 80.193.9.61 ( talk) 20:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Merge seems fair enough, he looks to have gained significant media coverage within the purview of the game itself. -- Aabicus ( talk) 21:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

A person that plays a videogame is hardly article-worthy. You may as well build an article for every internet alias that's been posted a few times, down to and including that guy on the wii who's "famous" for saying something racially provocative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:9400:8BA0:BF:CC4F:D1DA:3A70:3500 ( talk) 19:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Merge to Elden Ring#Reception Fails WP:BLP1E. Jumpytoo Talk 03:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fail WP:BLP1E, and I don't see what information would be worth of merging to the game's article without being seen as trivia. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 14:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Does WP:BLP1E apply? I don't think this is a low-profile individual. They seem to be answering questions directed at them about the event. see: WP:LPI 80.193.9.61 ( talk) 21:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Merge to Elden Ring#Reception Yet another case of an internet phenomenon considered large enough to warrant its own article. If it got significantly more coverage that presented more than just "an important Elden ring player", perhaps it could be salvaged. At the moment, it should be merged into Elden Ring as a part of game reception. CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 22:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Reads a bit too much like a KYM article Erik Humphrey ( talk) 04:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Merge to the main Elden Ring page as others have noted. Much of the page content comes from an interview with the player, which is not a suitable source for passing the GNG per WP:IS. Etzedek24 ^{(
I'll talk at ya) (
Check my track record)} 00:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. Four references in the article... two (from IGN and from PC Gamer) are exclusively about this player. The rest -- what does it matter? AfD is a place to decide whether the subject of an article meets general notability guidelines, not to deliberate on whether it is stupid. jp× g 01:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
That is absolutely false! AFD has to do wtih the entire article guidelines, not just notability. The rest matters a LOT actually, and 2 sources is nowhere near enough to be WP:SIGCOV. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Let's talk sources. The reliable source coverage of this topic is extended, enduring, non-trivial, and in-depth, from the individual's first appearance through to their backstory and cultural responses (fan art and mods). [23] The main PC Gamer and IGN sources in the article give interpretation and analysis beyond primary source interview, and the sources in the Further reading provide additional context. Additionally, the same stories have received extended coverage in other outlets. The coverage of this topic clearly goes beyond the reception of Elden Ring and clearly has more in-depth discussion than "Luigi death stare", mainly that sources have made enough original statements about this independent phenomenon that the article can support what has currently been written not to mention the sources eligible for expansion. czar 02:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Meaningless trivia driven in popularity through FromSoft's corporate sensationalism. Confounding that it should even be mentioned on Wikipedia. WP:NOTWHOSWHO - Christiaanp ( talk) 08:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep The nominator of this AfD did not advocate any valid grounds for deletion per WP:GNG, demonstrate they have properly done a WP:BEFORE, or provide any proper source analysis to demonstrate that the cited sources do not establish notability. I share the concerns expressed by LPS and MLP Fan about the nominator being potentially a bad faith actor. They appear to be a single purpose account who specifically joined Wikipedia just to start an AfD on the topic; though their argument for deletion based on A7 is a misapplication of Wikipedia policy, their actions indicate that they know more about Wikipedia processes then their inexperience would suggest. The majority of editors who have participated in this discussion have not offered arguments based on Wikipedia's relevant notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO) to rebut the presumption of notability established by the cited sources. There is a living person behind the player character, but based on a close inspection of the sources I believe that it is the character who is notable as opposed to its human creator, so WP:BLP1E does not apply.

Not liking the tone of what a reliable source has to say about the subject is certainly a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is still not a ground for deletion per guideline or policy. Agitating for deletion because the topic is in your subjective opinion "meaningless trivia" driven by "corporate sensationalism" does not make any sense because the developers and publisher have no hand in encouraging or promoting the topic's growing popularity. The ongoing glut of coverage from reliable and independent sources about the subject shows that it is anything but "meaningless trivia"; I am already seeing more recent content from sources like this, this, or this emerging from the past few days, which have not yet been cited in this article, that talk about a widely shared mod made by another third party unrelated to Tsuboi and the increasing number of fan art as part of the viral trend, so it is definitely salvagable and not a case of WP:TOOSOON or WP:NOTWHOSWHO. Article content, however broad or sparse, does not determine notability. Luigi Death Stare, a company-produced feature that unexpectedly went viral, is not an appropriate comparison because there are hardly any similarities between both topics; the "Let me solo her" character and viral phenomenon has more in common with Leeroy Jenkins in that both are fan-made characters, and that their players' unusual actions have achieved viral fame. This means a merge into the reception section of Elder Ring would be inappropriate and undue because not a single aspect of this fan-made character/player is a feature of the game itself, but is supported by original statements about this independent phenomenon.

The only valid arguments against this topic getting a standalone article in my opinion is that it may be too narrow in focus and probably should be discussed within the context of a wider Elder Ring fandom topic. For now, we have evidence of multiple sources which are specifically devoted to discussing the character in non-trivial detail and not as part of general Elden Ring gameplay or reception, so that fulfills the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. If there is WP:SIGCOV, then there is a presumption that a given topic may be entitled to be covered in a standalone article. Nothing on the pages of WP:GNG or even WP:NFICTION demand that a character must be "important" to the world to be considered notable. A direct quotation from WP:DELAFD, AfD processes "are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy". To conclude, the nomination and all of the pile-on delete votes ought to be discarded because no valid reason for deletion has been advanced in this discussion. For that matter, positions which flatly contradict established policy, are logically fallacious or based on personal views only, and those that show a lack of understanding of the issue at hand.

PS: On a side note, why do we even allow random editors below autoconfirmed or extended confirmed status the capability to conduct drive-by AfD nominations, especially when this is a topic area is notorious for rampant bad faith actions from block evading sockpuppets? Haleth ( talk) 17:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

If several other editors agree with the nomination to delete/merge then why would it present a problem? Not like they started this and saw full opposition and were hostile about it. ~ Dissident93 ^(
talk) 10:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The nominator called for deletion because the contents are allegedly not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Some editors responded by calling for a merge as a compromise. They are not the same thing. If there is a suitable merge target I’d support it, but in my opinion there isn’t one at the time of writing. You’ve already made up your mind, so let’s agree to disagree. Haleth ( talk) 11:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Merge to Elden Ring. There is nothing that would really be lost by culling everything but a sentence or two from this article and placing that back in Elden Ring's. ~ Dissident93 ^(
talk) 10:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Merge It seems reasonable to me to pare it down and merge into Elden Ring's "PvP and emergent gameplay" category. It looks more fitting than the "Reception" segment, with this kind of player interaction being textbook emergent gameplay. UnlikelyEvent ( talk) 02:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Merge and Redirect People will search for this player/term and including the content at Elden_Ring#Reception and then making the article a redirect makes sense. — Mainly 14:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Merge/redirect: The scope of the article is really narrow. Elden Ring is not long enough to justify a split of content like this. A minor section in Elder Ring, similar to that of Overwatch (video game)#Legacy, or a small paragraph similar to that of Monster Hunter: World#Reception would be more appropriate. OceanHok ( talk) 14:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect: Just doesn't seem notable enough outside of the context of Elden Ring. Cat's Tuxedo ( talk) 20:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 21:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

East Sussex Youth Cabinet

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

A youth group that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Currently, the only sources being used in the article are from the group's own websites. I did some searches to look for any additional sources, and while it does pop up as being mentioned here and there, nothing I found would be considered significant coverage. I initially PRODed this, but it turns out that there had been a contested PROD on this page previously, making ineligible to be PRODed now, so I am bringing it here. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:ORG. A mere 2 gnews hits. LibStar ( talk) 04:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. I agree that WP:NORG isn't met. There are a few brief articles in the local press (e.g. [24] and [25]), but per WP:AUD some sort of sigcov from regional/national sources (at minimum) is needed. No possible alternatives to deletion come to mind. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly no support for deletion. No consensus whether they are two different subjects or not, so this should be a merger discussion on the respective talk pages. So Why 08:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Broth

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

This is a content fork ( WP:CFORK) of Stock (food). Both article are about exactly the same topic, namely, a cooking ingredient consisting of water in which savory ingredients are simmered. The (identical) section "Stock versus broth" in both articles explains that "many cooks and food writers use the terms broth and stock interchangeably." It also explains that while there are writers that do make a distinction between stock and broth, they do not agree on what that distinction is.

It follows, in my view, that there should be only one article about the topic of savory hot water, with an explanation about the varying differences in terminology used by some writers. I have attempted to write such an article, but the merger was reverted. It's therefore time for a community discussion. I'm using AfD instead of a proposed merger because AfD is faster and content-forking is a reason for deletion. Sandstein 06:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 06:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. WP:POINTy nom. Full disclosure, I'm the one who reverted the merger. But this is absurd. oknazevad ( talk) 11:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC) reply
What a mess. I'd be inclined to Merge the material from Broth that's about broths into Stock (food), and give Broth a hat-note indicating that many people use the term as a synonym of Stock, but retain the Broth article (initially as a stub), to handle things like Scotch Broth, which is not a stock. And incidentally, Scotch Broth isn't "the liquid in a soup which includes solid pieces of meat, fish, or vegetables", it is the soup. I can't site a source, only a million cans in supermarkets up and down the countries of England, Wales and Scotland. As it stands, the two articles are too similar to justify both in their current form. Elemimele ( talk) 13:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC) reply
- Why does broth need to deal with Scotch Broth when Scotch Broth already has its own article at Scotch Broth … that doesn't link to broth? ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 19:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  - good point, Uncle G. Coming back to this, I really don't know what to do about it. Would it work better as some sort of disambiguation explanation that a broth can be a soup (pointing at Scotch Broth) or a Stock? Or would people complain that DABs need more than two items? I have no idea what's best. Elemimele ( talk) 18:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
A tricky case of ENGVAR. Enough people (including me) think that they're different, and sufficiently so to justify two articles, but I'm sure that the people who think they're the same will object. User:Elemimele probably has the least awkward solution - and is right about soups and Scotch Broth. Ingratis ( talk) 15:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep, as described in the article, broth and stock are two different but related things in some parts of the world. There are plenty of sources explaining the distinction between the two, for instance see page 4 of Mastering Stocks and Broths. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 22:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC) reply
- Brown 2014, p. 328 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBrown2014 ( help) agrees that there's a distinction. Uncle G ( talk) 02:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  - Brown, Amy Christine (2014). Understanding Food: Principles and Preparation (5th ed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN 9781285954493.
- @ SailingInABathTub, given that many writers think that there is no difference, and the others don't agree on what the difference is, why can the differences not be covered in a single article? Sandstein 05:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  - It would be useful if you could show some examples of the many writers who think there is no difference (there is one such source in the article), and those who cannot agree on what the difference is. Even the sources in the article, that say that they use the terms stock and broth interchangeably, acknowledge that there is a difference between the two. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 13:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    - Isabella Beeton used "stock or broth" throughout Household Management switching around to "broth or stock" to apparently relieve the monotony. ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 19:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
      - The author also uses the terms singularly where appropriate. Stating that either can be used in some recipes does not mean that they believe them to be equivalent. Much like we have articles for Passata, Tomato paste, Tomato sauce, and Ketchup and you can put any of them on your pizza for a similar effect! SailingInABathTub ( talk) 16:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    - Dupree & Graubart 2012, p. 282 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDupreeGraubart2012 ( help) says that "In this book, the words stock and broth are interchangeable." and augments that point on page 287. Uncle G ( talk) 19:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
      - Dupree, Nathalie; Graubart, Cynthia (2012). Mastering the Art of Southern Cooking. Gibbs Smith. ISBN 9781423623168.
        Yes, and the author also describes the technical difference between broth and stock on the same page. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 16:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
        
        To put it another way, what exactly is the substantial difference between the two topics that would warrant detailing this difference at article length, rather than mentioning the distinction in the one article for which we have material? I can't see it, and the articles don't make it clear either. Sandstein 16:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

It is not necessary to have an article on the difference between the two. Much like Tomato paste and Tomato purée, stock and broth are both independently notable enough to have their own articles and the distinction between them can form a small part of each article. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 17:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

But what is there to say about each of them that is not the same? Sandstein 17:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

It’s pretty clear when you stick to reliable sources (i.e. not sources that are confused about the distinction), that Broth or Bouillon is traditionally prepared primarily from meat and other ingredients and simmered for a short period of time, in a similar way to a light soup. Whereas traditional stock is made primarily by simmering raw or roasted bones and other ingredients, in water for an extended period of time. This should be made clearer in the Broth article and the sourcing could be improved, but this can be resolved through the normal editing process. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 17:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

If that is in fact the difference - and I can't really make out any difference in this description - then what would be the point of writing two articles that are identical in all respects except for these two sentences? Sandstein 17:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Why would you write two identical articles, for two different things? SailingInABathTub ( talk) 17:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Merge into a single article under the title of Stock, broth, and bouillon. BD2412 T 23:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Merge per BD2412. The differences in the two (three?) terminologies aren't enough to justify a separate page. Neither page goes into any depth that would be worth separating, but a combined article would have a higher quality than the sum of its parts. SWinxy ( talk) 17:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Merge The article pretty much consists of comparing stock to broth which is then poorly transcluded into the stock article. Not bothered too much on the title (although stock is the common term where I am from) as hatnotes can solve most reader related issues. Don't like Stock, broth, and bouillon as that is unnecessarily awkward. Maybe Stock as it is the best developed of the two and essentially is completed if the transculsion is no longer transcluded. Aircorn (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Snow Keep - there is no case for deletion of the article as it passes the GNG and literally no one has voted delete. As for merging it, go discuss that at WP:PM; AFD is not the relevant forum. Neonchameleon ( talk) 15:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
There is a case for deletion, namely, WP:CFORK: the article duplicates an existing article. No merger is required (although merging some small parts might be helpful). Sandstein 15:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
It won't be deleted as Broth is at the very least a likely search term so a redirect is the bare minimum. Aircorn (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
That doesn't preclude deleting the content fork first. Sandstein 21:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Why would we delete it just to recreate it as a redirect? And per WP:MAD we can't if we keep the comparisons. Aircorn (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't particularly object to a merger, but I want to point out that there is in fact a policy-based reason for deletion, which is why I brought this up at AfD. Sandstein 07:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Except that the broth article predates the stock article, so it's not a content fork of that article. If anything, it's the other way around. Mind you, the difference is only two months on articles that have both been around since 2004. Obviously the creators didn't consider them redundant. oknazevad ( talk) 18:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The creator(s) may not thought it was redundant, but what the creators believed was right isn't a convincing argument for why they should both be kept. It's tautological--it should be because it is. SWinxy ( talk) 22:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

While I agree it would have been better proposed as a merge, AFDs often end in Merge closes. Aircorn (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still don't see a consensus but no harm in a relist so doing so per request on my Talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep –While similar, they are also distinct enough. Stocks are typically used as a soup base. Also, stock concentrates are produced by various manufacturers for professional and consumer uses. Broth concentrates are also produced, but are less common. Also, stocks are typically cooked much longer compared to broths, particularly when used as a soup base, and tend to have a much stronger, condensed flavor. A unique distinction is that broth is often served to sick, infirm, elderly, patients recovering from surgery, and that sort of thing. Some examples of this from Google Books include this 1716 book, this 1917 book, this 1875 book, this 1845 book and this 1855 book, Many more sources are available that further verify this. Conversely, after searching around, the service of stock to the sick seems to be quite uncommon. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Are any of theses many sources less than a hundreds of years old? Aircorn (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 21:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Noah Giffin

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of an actor and recording engineer, not making any claim to passage of either WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim on offer here is that he exists -- but the notability test for an actor is not passed just by saying that he's had roles, and the notability test for sound engineers is not passed just by saying that they exist. For either occupation, the notability test is passed by supporting the article with reliable source coverage that externally validates the significance of their work, such as by showing that they won major awards for it or critically analyzing their work in depth. There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing, and even on a deep database search the only source I can find is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about a band he worked with as an engineer, which isn't enough. Bearcat ( talk) 15:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 15:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete I find nothing other than his name in a list in GBooks for productions made in Canada for consumption in the US market. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Wikipedia has way too many articles sourced only the non-reliable IMDb. It is time for this to change. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete I'm finding nothing in a deep dive for sources - other than perhaps a sound credit on an album. I do though question User:Johnpacklambert's delete vote, given his long history of drive-by delete voting without enough (or any) time to research a vote; this one being only 4 minutes (and 3 edits) after an impossibly quick vote at WP:Articles for deletion/Erasmo Gómez. Nfitz ( talk) 19:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per unanimous agreement of notability and sourcing. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

2022–23 Serie B

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

2022–23 Serie B

Article about the upcoming season of the second-tier Italian association football league. This article is too soon and does not contain enough information to satisfy general notability or any version of football notability. There are only two references, neither of which contains any information about secondary coverage of the league, and only one of which displays any information:

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	comofootball.com	The web site of Como, one of the teams	No	Yes	?	No
2	figc.it	Appears to be the web site of the Italian football federation, but a 404 error	No		?

This article was moved from article space to draft space by User:Eagleash with the edit summary: Not ready for mainspace WP:TOOSOON; insufficient information to remain as a published encyclopedia entry, which was correct at the time and is still correct. However, it was tweaked, and then moved back to article space by the originator with the edit summary "Ready", which was incorrect. It is not ready. It does not say anything encyclopedic except that the league exists, and there is already a parent article that says that.

The proper place for this page is either draft space, user space, or a bit bucket until the season starts, but another unilateral move to draft space would be move-warring. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. It's typical for major leagues to create such articles for the following season as the previous season ends, and it becomes clear who has qualified for next season. 2022–23 Serie A was created 6 weeks ago. Another second tier league that also has been created is 2022–23 EFL Championship. If the article was deleted, it would be recreated shortly. If it isn't good enough, then WP:ATD applies, which says editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Though to me, the article looks typical enough for this stage in the season. Nfitz ( talk) 15:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep What's the point in deleting a high priority article. This is a valid article, valid place holder and the Italian league easily passes GNG. Govvy ( talk) 19:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep It's clearly a notable league that has season articles and more references will be added as it progresses. I also don't believe it is WP:TOOSOON.— NZFC ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep If this was six months ago, when literally nothing was known, I might have been sympathetic. However, at this stage there doesn't seem to be any purpose in deleting it, as it would simply be recreated within a few weeks; at least one promotion to the division for this season has been confirmed already. Number 5 7 09:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Pointless to delete this, and there are certainly enough sources on the upcoming season at this point to write an article about it.-- Mvqr ( talk) 11:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep as above. Giant Snowman 18:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep current season is almost over. Rylesbourne ( talk) 20:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep as per comments above. Please note three out of four teams promoted to it from Serie C have already been confirmed, as the regular season for the latter has finalized today. -- Angelo ( talk) 22:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
keep WP:TOOSOON not apply here. 2021-22 will be over soon and some promotion and relegation is sure Hhkohh ( talk) 00:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per inadequate sourcing or evidence of notability. Only the article's creator apparently views it otherwise. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Andrew Henderson (entrepreneur)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, promotional (self-promotional?). The notion of being a "migration expert" is dubious to me – there is no evidence of his expertise other than having founded a company that makes claims. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 14:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Weak sourcing with passing mentions. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete buzzword filled article on a non-notable business consultant. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete, sourcing is weak. The subject works in an area that is probably notable (citizenship-by-investment and the "purchase" of citizenship by the rich; the acquisition of multiple passports by those who can), but the sources are primarily about the area, and not the subject of this article. The sources merely draw on his sound-bites and advertising material to illustrate their discussion of the subject, using him only in passing. Elemimele ( talk) 18:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability, per WP: GNG. Reads like WP:RESUME & WP:ADMASQ. NiklausGerard ( talk) 02:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Per those above. Weak sourcing and this thing is SEO-ed to the absolute max which raises concerns of paid editing. We're also bordering on WP:SNOW territory. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 13:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep There is no paid editing involved here. Come on now! I just thought that the news coverage surrounding Andrew Henderson could serve as a foundation for the page. The Forbes and CNBC articles were all derived from Nomad Capitalist research, according to the content, so Henderson and his company weren't just passing mentions. They drove that content entirely. Doctorstrange617 ( talk) 14:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edge Spectrum. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

WFYW-LP

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

Non-notable 3ABN translator; fails WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 03:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 03:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 03:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Three Angels Broadcasting Network as it is verifiable it exists and it is plausible to search for it. Agree this low-power local station, owned and operated by 3ABN, is not independently notable of 3ABN. Pikavoom ^Talk 05:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I would redirect to Edge Spectrum as I don't know if 3ABN will be offered when finally converted to digital. The Edge Spectrum stations are mostly going to be engaged in ATSC 3.0 datacasting, though they must provide one television service as a subchannel. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 14:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Edge Spectrum Current license holder, though they've done a lot of license-returning this week as the FCC has rejected their tolling requests to stretch out their current unbuilt construction permits. An update to the infobox to the current system does not show WFYW as an active license, so this needs to be double-checked. FCCinfo shows its last CP expired on January 10, 2022. Nate • ( chatter) 21:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Beth Taylor

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

Comment: this was not the same person as the present Beth Taylor. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Promotional (direct quote: "Her story is an honest, brave, heartbreaking, and hopeful look at her journey") page about person with limited notability. From 2009 - not sure how it survived this long, to be honest.

The page has 10 references - all are dead links, the two that were archived seem to be minor mentions, and even from the titles nine of the ten seem to have originally mentioned Taylor as part of a longer list of people.
The two official pages of the subject are also dead links. (Not that they would have contributed to notability directly, but I was hoping they might have better links to third party sources about her.)
The subject's claims to notability seem to be that:
- she was Mississippi's first female television sportscaster (uncited, and honestly, that seems a relatively specific and minor qualification - imagine the thousands of articles we would need about the first female television consumer reporter in Alabama, the first female television arts reporter in West Yorkshire, the first female television health reporter in Chelyabinsk...)
- she was a behind-the-scenes journalist at a few local newspapers and television stations, some of which won awards (not she specifically, just the newspapers or television stations)
- wrote a self-published book that I can't find any reviews of,
- had a small business (in marketing, of course) and
- won a number of local awards (it says "more than 100" but only specifies maybe 10, of which many were again to her as part of a list or team, and all seem rather minor).
This page was created in 2009 by a single purpose editor, User:Tygerbait, every single edit of whom was to this page.
In this edit comment Tygerbait writes they are, in fact, Beth Taylor, the subject of the page. I know, a shocking twist ending that no one expected. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Promotional wording. I find nothing about her as an author, there's an Australian TV host with similar names and more hits. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Louisiana. Shellwood ( talk) 16:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Two things stand out here, in addition to what the nominator says. At Special:Permalink/520719073 there are no sources at all until after the life and career parts, which is unsurprising given the article's history as a cleaned up version of the subject's autobiographies on LinkedIn and elsewhere, given the copying called out in edit summaries. When sources 1 to 5 are way down the article and are clearly supporting one sentence with a synthesized conclusion, something is very wrong. Special:Diff/520719073/1083571649 shows nothing substantial happening to the article in the 10 years since the subject last touched it. This is effectively an unsourced autobiography, either of which would be wrong by itself. We shouldn't be hosting this, or wasting editors' time on further cleanup. Let a new article grow properly from scratch, if one can indeed be grown at all. Uncle G ( talk) 20:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability, per WP: GNG. Unreliable coverage and not independent. Reads like WP:ADMASQ. A wonder it has lasted this long. NiklausGerard ( talk) 02:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Agree with NiklausGerard. Doesn't meet WP: GNG. MaskedSinger ( talk) 12:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that she meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. So Why 08:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Teresa van Lieshout

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

Not notable. She has never been elected to parliament in any of her attempts having only gained a maximum of approximately 1.64% of the vote in any electorates she has run in. Never been a officer holder of any major political party. Her attempts at authorship and not notable either. Almost all mentions of her in the media are to do with her outbursts or bizarre behaviour around election times and she is forgotten once elections are over. Current media attention is momentary and she will be once again forgotten once the court case passes. All in an all a very unnotable person whose existence is not encyclopedic. AlanS^talk 12:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, COVID-19, and Australia. AlanS^talk 12:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

Delete per my nomination. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. AlanS^talk 13:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: AlanS ( talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. reply
Keep, obviously. I don't know what part of GNG you think it fails, but as far as I can tell, it meets those requirements. -- Pokelova ( talk) 13:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
- She lacks significant coverage. The coverage she has is almost exclusively confined to her outbursts during election campaigns. This is not significant coverage. AlanS^talk 13:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I think you are operating under a different definition of significant than what the policy actually says. -- Pokelova ( talk) 13:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Per WP:GNG, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." A lot of sources that focus on one aspect, i.e., her outbursts at election times, do not address her in detail. Focusing on the same minor attention seeking behaviour over and over again does not address her as a biographical subject in detail. She lacks notability because there is no significant coverage of her. I think that is perhaps you that are operating under a different definition of significant than what Wiki policy says. AlanS^talk 13:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Being primarily known for being a loon does not inherently make her unnotable. Your idea that "in detail" means every article about her needs to do a deep dive into her entire history is frankly ridiculous. -- Pokelova ( talk) 13:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment More coverage over her criminal history, seems to be notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete I do not think the subject meets the guidelines for fringe subjects, and her actions clearly put her on the fringe, so those are the guidelines we should consider when evaluating the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Johnpacklambert, I'm unaware of the fringe subject guidelines. Could you please post a link? Schwede 66 01:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Schwede66, there is the WP:FRINGEBLP guideline, e.g. There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject. From my view, I think there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the subject in a serious and extensive manner, which has allowed this biography to be written in a neutral manner. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
FRINGEBLP - excellent. Thanks for that. Schwede 66 01:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep - WP:BASIC notability appears supported by independent and reliable sources over time, based on my initial review of the article and sources available online. This guideline includes, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, which appears to apply here. The WP:FRINGE guideline says, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner, and this appears to be well-covered by the Legal issues section of the article. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. I am satisfied there's enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils ( talk) 02:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep There's decent and sustained coverage, including relating to her arrest for involvement in a bizarre alleged coup plot. Per WP:FRINGEBLP "There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs." AusLondonder ( talk) 13:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yutaka Tanaka. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Ai-Ren

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

The series does not seem notable and it only has one source. I could not find enough secondary sources. On another note, the other series from the author that have articles, Itoshi no Kana and Princess Mimia, have similar issues. - Xexerss ( talk) 07:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan - Xexerss ( talk) 07:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Yutaka Tanaka per nom. Link20XX ( talk) 15:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Yutaka Tanaka. Should have been WP:BOLD with this one as the redirect is non-controversial. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗ plicit 13:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Dev Kharoud

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. And, also lack WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens ( talk) 09:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 09:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 09:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 09:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep - Article is inadequately sourced, but the subject is notable for his unique style of acting which is well covered in the press. Also most of the films he has acted in gets quite the coverage. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 16:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. consensus is the sourcing isn't sufficient to meet the level required Star Mississippi 13:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Mount Carmel School Hazaribagh

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the previous deletion discussion. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 03:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 03:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 03:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 03:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep: School established in 1949. Has coverage in reliable media. Was recently in national media too for incidents of minority persecution [26]. Also famous for its legacy colonial building see Venkat TL ( talk) 12:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Naskar, Hem Borker. "Rediscovering Jharkhand's legacy of colonial buildings". Frontline.
"Hazaribagh: ABVP threatens two Christian schools, forces one to close". The Indian Express. 22 April 2015. Retrieved 4 April 2022.
The article about the ABVP attack barely mentions the school, since it wasn't one of the two being attacked. The Frontline article also has a bare mention of the school :"the Police Training College, formerly the Roman Catholic Mount Carmel School whose chapel still houses the remains of the Catholic church built in 1865 for the British troops in the cantonment;". - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 05:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply
@ MPGuy2824 The evidence in the national english media proves that more coverage exists in local media. See these for example
"श्रुति सुमन बनी आइसीएससी 10वीं की जिला टॉपर". Dainik Jagran (in Hindi). Retrieved 5 April 2022.

"फाउंडर की कोविड से मौत के बाद चंद दिनों में शुरू हुआ माउंट कार्मेल स्कूल में 100 बेड वाला कोविड केयर सेंटर". Navbharat Times (in Hindi). Venkat TL ( talk) 09:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Venkat, the first article is another trivial mention of the school, while the second seems to be about a school in Delhi. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 03:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply
MPGuy2824, sorry I failed to see Delhi. The former link covering the school performance is a good indication that this is a notable school in the region. Venkat TL ( talk) 14:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Per nom and the argument above. Shashank5988 ( talk) 14:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Paul Solomon

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

Having been notified of this article through WP:FTN, I found that the sourcing was entirely to acolytes and to primary sources stored by his eponymous/posthumous foundation. Looking for independent sources on this person, I find essentially nothing (there is a much more famous Paul Solomon who is not included at Wikipedia who shows up very high in search results, for example). As such, I do not believe this biography is worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia by any of our normal notability metrics. It looks like it was started as a soapbox and coatrack. jps ( talk) 11:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Spirituality. jps ( talk) 11:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per OP. The sourcing is miserable, the article is full of nonsense and provides no evidence of notability. NightHeron ( talk) 13:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete There does not appear to be the coverage in reliable, independent sources that we would need in order to write a biography. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete As per what other commenters have written. MaskedSinger ( talk) 11:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete the entire article seems to be sourced to a rather small number of books which themselves appear to be merely promotional of Solomon's work; with a lack of independent sourcing and analysis, I'm not sure this qualifies for an article. -- Jayron 32 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete As OP says, article has scant sources and those that exist are linked to his associates. AtFirstLight ( talk) 19:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Edinburgh in popular culture

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

Another run-of-the-mill failure of WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA. Only three references, so most of this is WP:OR. Lead states it wants to be a list "This article lists notable films and books set or with a significant scene in Edinburgh, Scotland, and other aspects of popular culture", and of course the article doesn't even respect its own inclusion criteria - most entries don't explain what, if any, part of the related media are connected to the city, and one of the few which does is arguably not significant ("The Dresden Files novels Turn Coat and Changes, by Jim Butcher, have scenes set in the White Council's stronghold which is hidden within Castle Rock."). The first video game mentioned, Test Drive 5, doesn't even mention the city in our article on the game... etc. This is just another TVTrope-like list of trivia that needs to go, with nothing to merge. My BEFORE query didn't find any SIGCOV on this topic, but if sources do exist, WP:TNT would apply anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 10:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 10:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 10:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep I have added several references regarding Rankin's books. https://malwarwickonbooks.com/from-ian-rankin/ 'In some ways dominating them all, a character in its own right, is the city of Edinburgh'. Xx236 ( talk) 07:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I am afraid this doesn't change the article significantly. Adding a bit more trivia to the list of trivia doesn't make it less trivial. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Is this new page any better List of Gambian Creole people? Let's rename this page to List of books and films about Edinburgh. Xx236 ( talk) 11:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
First, what makes the new name better? Why exclude mentions of the city in TV episodes or video games? And second, why would the new scope be better? As for the list you link to, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you think that list of bad, nominate it for its own AfD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 11:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I note Xx236 has now nominated the list in question for deletion. What the relevance of that list to this discussion is not clear. AusLondonder ( talk) 03:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete: This list is another collection of original research and trivia. While there is probably a notable topic here, the list would need to be completely purged and rewritten to become compliant with our policies. Therefore, it should be destroyed and rebuilt. ― Susmuffin ^Talk 10:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
As far I see the destruction. Who will built anything? Xx236 ( talk) 11:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete if the only arguement to keep is there are other articles with poor sourcing, we have no argument at all. We do not need more trivia, we need sources that cover this not in the context of one work, but in the context of this as a broad topic, which we lack. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Trim by all means, but these articles are split off from the main one following WP:SPLIT, very often with a size issue too, and I deplore the ongoing campaign to pick them off at Afd. The subject is very clearly notable, and a very-quality article could easily be written on it. That this hasn't yet happened is not an argument for deletion. The buffet of policies in the nom does not bear scrutiny. Johnbod ( talk) 18:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

And Piotyrus, why was this not added to the Scotland list? Johnbod ( talk) 18:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I didn't realize we had such a list. Added. You could've done it yourself, you know. 5s with Twinkle XfD menu. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 11:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't care to clutter up my machine with such stuff. Much better to remind you to do things properly in the first place. Johnbod ( talk) 21:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

You could have done it manually in the time it took you to complain here. AusLondonder ( talk) 02:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Trivial list. Nothing in the current article that could be usable in any future article on this topic. wp:TNT Cakelot1 ( talk) 19:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Seriously??? There are several famous books set in Edinburgh, dealing with the city, on the list. Can I ask, have you ever been to Edinburgh? Do you know anything about literature on Edinburgh? Johnbod ( talk) 00:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I have no doubt a good article could be written about the Edinburgh in literature. This is not that article and I don't think any of the content in this article would be usable in such an article (Hence TNT). This ( as with other lists of this sort) is an indiscriminate collection of original research (I am not opposed to an article on Edinburgh in literature be written if properly sourced).

P.S.: I have been to Edinburgh many times but I don't see why going to a place would make somebody more or less likely to vote delete. I've probably visited York more and have no doubt that many books and films have been set there. However, if an article called York in popular culture turned up at AFD in the state that most of these "pop cult" articles are I would support deletion. Cakelot1 ( talk) 10:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I have never heard that to form an opinion about content on a Wikipedia article you need to have visited the city concerned. AusLondonder ( talk) 03:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 11:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Per WP:TNT and per nom. When an article would need a rewrite to be encyclopedic, it should probably be restarted in the parent article and split off if it becomes too big. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 19:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Unencyclopedic mess of original research and trivia. As stated by others above anything useful about this topic should be rewritten as prose and included in the main article. AusLondonder ( talk) 03:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - A list of trivia with no sources actually discussing the topic as a whole. Many of the entries are extremely trivial, and most have no context at all, simply being the name of a piece of fiction. The potential of the topic really has no bearing on what is currently included here, which is an unsalvageable list of trivia that would not need to be preserved for any kind of rewrite to occur. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete this article lacks any secondary sources, failing WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOT. It's possible that there could be a proper article at a modified version of this title, but there is no prose here to WP:PRESERVE, hence deletion. This is probably left over from an era of Wikipedia when editors did not respect the need for sources. Shooterwalker ( talk) 23:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per User:TenPoundHammer/Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 01:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment - I was surprised to see this in some senses as Edinburgh has a very long history of depictions in popular culture. However the article as it stands is just a list and one that is tending towards trivia, if not outright trivia. Thus my view would be that while this could be the subject of an article it would need to be almost totally reworked and changed into something discussing how Edinburgh has been portrayed in popular media rather than a list which could effectively include any book, TV series, film or shortbread tin which has ever depicted or even made a passing mention of the city. Dunarc ( talk) 19:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 11:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Mankuroane Technical and Commercial Secondary School

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

A non notable school, does not meet WP:NCORP Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 09:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and South Africa. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 09:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Lorstaking 17:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Technically ineligible, but no one is contesting it and another relist isn't going to help. @ Oaktree b: if you'd like to work on it in draft, just let me know. Happy to provide it. Star Mississippi 13:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Paul Joannides (psychoanalyst)

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

Not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources of this person. Current references include self-published and promotional sources. I have found and added to the lead a mention of him in HuffPo, but other than that I can only find sources that do not appear reliable, such as lists of speakers, and passing mentions. Tacyarg ( talk) 02:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

edited to add: PRODed in 2011, at which point references were added by someone whose username suggests they are the subject of the article. Tacyarg ( talk) 02:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg ( talk) 02:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg ( talk) 02:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg ( talk) 02:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 03:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment Many hits in GScholar, as an author, dating back to the 1970s. Would seem to be notable but we'd need to verify his impact factor perhaps. 14:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi ( talk) 09:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

2022 Mozambique landslide

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

A routine news coverage of an event Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 09:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Africa. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 09:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Can't meet WP:LASTING. GenuineArt ( talk) 04:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Weather of 2022 as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(
ICE-T •
ICE CUBE)} 13:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

2022 Uganda floods

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

Just a routine news coverage of a flood. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 09:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Portugal. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 09:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Weather of 2022. Regardless of notability, there is no information here beyond that of the Weather of 2022. Even the reference is the same so do not merge. A redirect is helpful per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. Tip: in a trivial case like this (ultra-short, all info contained elsewhere), nom could have redirected instead of AfD-ing. Even so, thank you for caring! gidonb ( talk)
Delete Can't meet WP:LASTING. GenuineArt ( talk) 04:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 12:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

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

At this point, this is a mix of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Most of the article consists of relaying news reports of sexual crimes, very loosely tied together with limited statements by a couple of Ukrainian officials. While I would not be surprised if this did eventually become separately notable, it is just not there yet as this moment; it is far too soon.

This article just doesn't necessarily have the board macro-scale needed to cross the threshold of WP:NOTNEWS yet. Curbon7 ( talk) 07:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, Events, Europe, Russia, and Ukraine. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Overview by OHCHR that is nearly a month old; wide international coverage.
The claim of relaying news reports of sexual crimes, very loosely tied together is incorrect. The topic is tied together in IV.D. of the 26 March 2022 report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which uses research by the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU) to provide an overview of sexual violence in this invasion. The OHCHR report is 24 days old, from before the liberation of Bucha and the Kyiv region, so it's not just headline news, and it was published prior to the biggest headline news. It's true there are some individual cases listed, because these attracted wide media attention. The topic is not a strict subset of war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, because sexual violence during an armed conflict does not always qualify as a war crime (for example, the sexual violence attributed to Ukrainians by OHCHR/HRMMU; of currently disputed notability on the talk page). Moreover, sexual violence in an armed conflict is a specific (illegal) aspect of wars that is (unfortunately) typically significant on its own.
This recent version of the article has sources showing wide international coverage in WP:RSes specifically focussing on this topic: The New York Times; BBC News; The Guardian; The Washington Post; The Independent; The Times; The Scotsman. Boud ( talk) 14:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The current version also includes notability from The Quint, which together makes tri-continental coverage (N.America, Europe, Asia). The Quint (new to me) appears to be a good quality investigative journalism news site, receiving good comments from many sources, per its Wikipedia article. Boud ( talk) 15:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. Both the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine and Human Right Watch are raising Sexual Violence and rape as an issue in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Both these sources have been referenced in the article. Therefore believe believe the article meets the criteria required for a Wikipedia article. Ilenart626 ( talk) 08:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep, and expand the scope to Sexual violence in the Russo-Ukrainian War. For example, Izolyatsia prison is a documented, notorious location used for systemic violence including sexual violence by Russian proxies, and sexual violence has been committed by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea, and documented by the UN. [27] — Michael Z. 12:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Expanding the scope would be quite a good idea, I can get behind that. Curbon7 ( talk) 15:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. A recognized feature of the Russian military behavior in Ukraine. According to several analyses, despite being underreported, it can actually be of historical scale.-- Kober^Talk 15:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep - sadly a real scope in this war. Good sourcing, within WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 19:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. BobNesh ( talk) 06:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep - Extensive coverage in reliable sources. NOT too soon to be talking about this Chronotime ( talk) 19:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Well sourced, with in-depth coverage. Has attracted substantial international attention. Somewhat disappointing nomination to be honest. To have had a deletion template at the top of this article for several days would not cause a casual reader to reflect well on us. Think it would have been much more helpful for the nom to discuss initial concerns on the talkpage or another forum. AusLondonder ( talk) 01:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Clearly notable, and I don't believe it's WP:TOOSOON at all, although the article will certainly be improved as time goes on and more information comes out. -- WestCD ( talk) 02:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Lots of coverage in RS, clearly notable. Volunteer Marek 12:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Coverage obviously meets GNG as demonstrated above and through the article's sourcing. No reason to delete. Samsmachado ( talk) 00:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Basheer Rifat

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Egypt. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Weak Delete pending a possible review of sources (machine-translated). This article does not speak for itself and does not explain how the subject passes author notability or general notability. Article was draftified once by User:DMySon as not ready for article space, but was then moved to article space anyway. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete do not show significant coverage about the subject in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. DMySon ( talk) 06:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Mostafa Ibrahim

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Egypt. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - This article does not speak for itself and does not satisfy general notability or author notability. It was (reasonably) declined in draft space by User:KylieTastic and then moved to article space anyway. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete as nommed. (Yet another example of how bypassing AfC just results in AfD and generates unnecessary extra work all around.) -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 08:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and I'm going to SALT the title so it cannot be immediately moved back. Mahesh is probably notable, but the article is not suitable for mainspace as a BLP. IndaneLove, you're treading on thin ice even with a clear-ish SPI. PLease let someone uninvolved work on a neutral article. Star Mississippi 13:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Kruti Mahesh (choreographer)

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

Initially, the page was moved into the draft by Praxidicae and the creator was advised to submit the draft at AfC. Despite being advised, the page was again moved back to the main namespace by bypassing AfC on the basis of poor interpretation of WP:RS/ WP:RSP. Most of the citations (which are claimed to be reliable by the creator) are the interviews/first account quotes given by the subject to the portals. For more details, kindly check 1, 2, 3. The interviews can be used to source a statement of that fact. However, the existence of interviews should not generally be taken as the crux of an argument that the person has passed WP:GNG. If the person is not the subject of sufficient third-party analysis of their significance, then the existence of one or more interview pieces does not clinch them as notable all by itself.

Besides that, the title of the page has been modified by the addition of "choregrapher" as a suffix to bypass protected/blocked Kruti Mahesh which has been protected and requires extended confirmed access. Also, there is a draft existing under the same name; Draft:Kruti Mahesh. There is no doubt, that this page is end-to-end WP:PROMO, backed up by an editor who has WP:UPE/ WP:COI. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens ( talk) 08:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 08:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 08:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Hatchens She is a recipient of the National Film Award, Filmfare Award, IIFA Award and Zee Cine Award for the song Ghoomer from the movie Padmaavat. Haven’t you checked these details? - IndaneLove ( talk) 09:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Most of the sources used seem to be about her talking about other people, nothing about her directly. Still leaning delete and the prior article was judged to be non-notable for our standards here. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Oaktree b have you checked that she has won national film award and filmfare award?

IndaneLove ( talk) 11:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The page has already been declined once and salted so as to not be re-created. I don't see why we have to debate it again. This should be a speedy delete. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Oaktree b Please see the first criteria of WP:ANYBIO. I already explained that she has won National Film Award, Filmfare Award, IIFA Award and Zee Cine Award for the song Ghoomer from the movie Padmaavat. Still you are saying that she is not notable.

IndaneLove ( talk) 18:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment I'm unsure how notable those awards are, if others can confirm, I'd be open to revisiting my vote. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Oaktree b National Film Awards, Filmfare Awards, International Indian Film Academy Awards and Zee Cine Awards Please check all these articles of awards and you would recognise that these awards are notable or not. Fact is that these all awards are notable that’s why have articles on Wikipedia.

IndaneLove ( talk) 21:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Oaktree b: There is an on-going Sock Puppertry investigation on IndaneLove. You can follow it, by clicking here. - Hatchens ( talk) 06:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment so it's even less notable now. Thank you for the info. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Oaktree b So you mean if Hatchens thinks that i am Sock Puppert of any other’s account then this choreographer became less notable? Sorry to say, but it doesn’t make any sense. and I don’t have any previous account so this allegation is baseless. Talking about this choreographer I explained that she has won notable awards. So please check all details. i am talking about this article so if any investigation is on going so it doesn’t mean this choreographer is less notable or non notable. National Film Award, Filmfare awards and IIFA awards are India’s most notable awards. Google would help you if you have any doubts.

IndaneLove ( talk) 11:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Sock puppets lower the respectability and trust-worthiness of the article. I've already voted and will not take your comments into consideration while the investigation is on-going. 15:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@ Oaktree b But how can you ignore the fact that she is notable choreographer? and i am not worrying about this investigation because i am not a sock puppet of any account. But I feel very bad that you are ignoring the facts and still voting for delete because of investigation is on-going.

IndaneLove ( talk) 17:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Again, this has already been discussed. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon ( talk) 06:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete: As with suspected UPE this can be complex. I note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IndaneLove which has, currently, a cautious outcome. I note, also, that there has been no formal Paid Editing warning given to IndaneLove hitherto. I have asked that formal question just now.
However, the outcome of this discussion does not depend entirely on the answers to those questions. Since the article Kruti Mahesh has an "interesting" history, I would expect substantial work to have been done to differentiate this new instance of it from the deleted and salted version. Not having admin goggles I cannot examine that. However I cannot see the Mahesh will have acquired notability since then
For the mixture of reasons above, and also a feeling that this is WP:ADMASQ for a marginally notable if at all creatve person I suggest deletion and salting of this iteration of the article name 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment - these recent sources appear to help support her WP:BASIC notability as a choreographer: On International Women's Day, celebrating female choreographers, from Farah Khan to Kruti Mahesh (FirstPost, Mar. 8, 2022), Dedicated to dance (Deccan Chronicle, Mar. 10, 2022), Kruti Mahesh: Every day is different when I work with Sanjay Leela Bhansali sir (Hindustan Times, Mar. 19, 2022), A look at 5 hook steps by Indian choreographers (FirstPost, Apr. 13, 2022). Beccaynr ( talk) 06:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply
There is also: The making of Padmavati song Ghoomar: Deepika Padukone’s 66 twirls, 30kg lehenga and more (Hindustan Times, 2017), National Film Awards 2019: Ayushmann Khurrana, Vicky Kaushal share Best Actor, Keerthy Suresh named Best Actress (WION, 2017, "The song 'Ghoomar' from the same film fetched choreographer Kruti Mahesh award for choreography."), Bollywood: The World’s Biggest Film Industry, review: a fascinating look at this vibrant, uplifting world (The Telegraph, 2018, "Amid the organised chaos of subsequent set visits, location shoots and a hilarious dance sequence put together for her by star choreographer Kruti Mahesh"), Makers of 'Sardar ka Grandson' drop its first song 'Jee Ni Karda' (ANI, 2021, "What makes it more interesting is that the makers had roped in National Award winner choreographer Kruti Mahesh for the song."), Choreographer Kruti Mahesh is dancing her way to success (Telangana Today, 2022), Alia Bhatt dances with abandon in Gangubai Kathiwadi’s garba song, Dholida. Watch (The Indian Express, 2022, "with choreography by Kruti Mahesh"). Beccaynr ( talk) 00:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ @ Oaktree b, @ User:Timtrent Please pay attention to the sources mentioned by Beccaynr. IndaneLove ( talk) 17:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Please stop pinging me everytime you post, I've made my decision as above. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Please do not badger me on my talk page. You had pinged me previously. I have said what I am going to say. The more you badger the less inclined I am to do anything you request 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Leaning Draftify, based on the WP:PROMO content of the article, including significant reliance on primary sources and WP:TOI, and the possibility that sources identified in this discussion may help produce a more neutral article with content that supports WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Request to admin

Please Relist this discussion for more comments from other users. Oaktree b and Timtrent voted for delete just because a SPI case was open against me but the case is closed now. Maybe other users will check the all details about this choreographer (her notable awards and reliable news sources) and a correct result will come out.

IndaneLove ( talk) 05:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ IndaneLove Please cease your badgering. Any admin who chooses to close this discussion is perfectly capable of looking at the opinions expressed and making their own decision based upon them. If any editor disagrees with that decision WP:DRV is available to them.

Additionally please do not misinterpret my words in my opinion expressed above. It is tendentious at best and does you no favours. Again, the closing admin is perfectly capable of reading, understanding and sorting consensus out. Note, though, that the more you badger and hector the more convinced I am of UPE and WP:ADMASQ, simply because of the behaviour you are exhibiting.

Relisting may or may not be appropriate. An uninvolved editor will judge that on their own and on the merits of the discussion so far. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Big Writing

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

Not notable. Derpdart56 ( talk) 13:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. The tenderer did not provide reasons for the non-notability. The article is properly referenced. ✍A.WagnerC ( talk) 14:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep properly referenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottWillis45 ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment in what way is this article conceivably correctly referenced?

Ref 1 is a school newsletter from Ardsley school, who presumably bought the product, so they're not independent. It's just their explanation to the school's parents about what they're doing. It's evidence that a school used it, but it's primary, not a secondary source (newspaper, book, educationalist) writing about the scheme from outside.

Ref 2 is a pdf of unknown authorship, definitely a primary source.

Ref 3, 4, 5, 6 point to amazon, and are all case studies written by the subject of the article

Ref 7 is basically a blog, a self-published teacher help resource

Ref 8 is an index page pointing at andrelleducation.co.uk's own pages

Ref 9 is by the subject of the article

Ref 10 is currently unrelated to the article

Ref 11, 12 even the archived version is currently a dead link

Ref 13 and 15 are both school sites providing information about the scheme, and are identical, suggesting that they're merely reproductions of the information the scheme gives schools to give to parents.

Ref 14 is by the subject of the article

I am seeing no independent coverage whatsoever. I'm not saying the scheme isn't notable, but it's insane to consider this article properly referenced. The original nominator should have specified the reason for nomination, but given that they didn't, may I suggest: produced by a single purpose account with possible COI, and heavily edited by another single purpose account, obviously promotional, devoid of any independent sourcing. It's hard to search for independent secondary sources because of the generic name, and because any primary school that's used it will have something on their website about it for parents. The school sites are, of course, evidence that it's been used widely, which is great, but they're also primary sources (pun unintentional...). The article desperately needs a reference to an educationalist or someone else. The best I can come up with is an education organisation's report [28], but this isn't ideal. Can anyone find something better? Elemimele ( talk) 19:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. No evidence whatever of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references are largely promotional and not independent. Most of them don't give substantial coverage of the subject, and most if not all of them are not independent sources, being by the creator of "big writing", or on web sites selling materials related to it, etc. Also the Wikipedia article is unambiguously promotional. (It was created as blatant spam by a single-purpose account which also created several other pages, now deleted, advertising "big writing". Its promotional tone has subsequently been drastically reduced by other editors, but it's still unmistakably there.) JBW ( talk) 20:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete none of the sources are the indepdent, reliable, 3rd party sources upon which workable Wikipedia articles need to be built. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. I found a lot of sources that appear to be in some way promotional, but nothing that was clearly WP:SIGCOV Jacona ( talk) 12:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon ( talk) 06:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Yisrael Mendel Kaplan

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

Article that has been on the cat::nn list for more than a decade. Lacks coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Current coverage is passing mentions and a lookup form where his death is recorded. Several passing mentions in coverage as a teacher but nothing in-depth scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Judaism. Shellwood ( talk) 15:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:HEY, WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. I have added an additional source and cleaned up the rest. Highly regarded teacher who is written up in multiple biographies and magazine articles. StonyBrook ( talk) 07:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

You have added a ref that is three small paragraphs and like the rest is not in-depth and seems to be passing mentions like tht red. The lede states he was a teacher. None of seems to indicate why is he notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The subject wasn't just a run of the WP:MILL teacher, like tens of thousands of others. How many teachers have books written about them? He left his mark on many people, some of whom went on to achieve great things themselves. I added a notable student, with source. StonyBrook ( talk) 08:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. StonyBrook ( talk) 08:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. StonyBrook ( talk) 08:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. StonyBrook ( talk) 08:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon ( talk) 06:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" arguments consist only of assertions that a head of a very large police force is automatically notable, but this view has no basis in our notability guidelines. On the contrary, the community has some time ago deprecated WP:SOLDIER, which used to assume the notability of high-ranking military officers, which hold similar positions. The "delete" side's arguments that there are not enough secondary sources to write an article with remains uncontested. Sandstein 12:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Purshottam Lal

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

A biography of a police officer, who was Director general of police in Punjab. That is the only claim to notability, and I don't think a Director general of police is automatically notable. The sources are overwhelmingly articles and opinions pieces written by him, together with a couple of press releases about his books. The only independent source is this review of one of his books – it is not more than a paragraph, however.

The tone of the article is so promotional that I was tempted to speedy tag it as spam. If the article should be kept after this AfD, it will have to be cut down and thoroughly rewritten. In addition, very little of the biographical information has a source (one wonders where the information in the "Early life and family" section comes from). bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. The head of the police in an Indian state with a population of nearly 28 million is clearly significant enough for an article. Poor article, but enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Being a poor article is not a criterion for deletion. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete I'm not so sure that being the head of police for a state of large population is a lock for a notability pass. For instance, after checking it's category there doesn't to be an article on a single commissioner of the California Highway Patrol. Some of these refs appear to be self-written and others as simple book listings. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 16:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
- This has been said before, but those who say it completely fail to understand that American policing works completely differently. The California Highway Patrol is merely one police agency among thousands in California. The Punjab Police, however, polices the whole Punjab. The Commissioner of the CHP is not the head of the police in California, but merely the head of one relatively small agency. The DGP of the Punjab is the head of the police in the Punjab. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 22:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  - Commenting as nominator: I don't know anything about USAnian police systems but I do know what the DNG is (I linked to the article in the nomination, to make sure that other participants in the discussion could check), and I definitely did not mean to imply that the article was nominated because it's in a poor state. I started by trying to clean the article up, and realised that I could not find anything to indicate notability, unless a Director General of Police in an Indian state is inherently notable. Looking at various SNGs I just couldn't find that – but I'm happy to be proven wrong. I disagree about the current sources meeting GNG. -- bonadea contributions talk 09:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The article creator and main contributor has been blocked for sockpuppetry. -- bonadea contributions talk 09:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete we just do not have the level of coverage to justify an article on him. Oddly enough, at least in the US, I am suspecting that city level police chiefs are more likely to be notable (well, as in more are notable, the percentage notable will be less, but that is because there are so many more cities), than state police chiefs. I am sure we could create multiple well sourced articles on the heads of police in New York City, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles and possibly a few other major cities, I think we would be much more hard pressed to create articles on heads of police for New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Michigan or California. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
- Again, as I pointed out above, state police forces in America are generally not especially large and the head of the state police is not head of all policing in the state, but only of their own force which only has limited jurisdiction. Most policing is handled by independent city or county police agencies. This is a fundamental difference between policing in the United States and most other countries (which mostly only have a single national force or sometimes only a single force in each state) which seems to confuse many American editors. This gentleman, on the other hand, directly commands all or almost all police in the entire state of Punjab, a force 80,000 strong (nearly twice the size of the NYPD, America's biggest police agency). That's an enormous difference. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 22:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon ( talk) 06:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep: The gentleman is eminently notable on account of his outstanding work in his professsion-37 years of well recognised service in the IPS( Indian Police Service) which is equivalent to the IP of British times. His stint in the premier investigating agency of Govt of India -CBI- is also notable. His work won public acclaim . His notability is also due to his being an eminent writer contributing more than 115 articles in national Newspapers and having written four books launched by two different Governors of Punjab state. Governors of Indian States don't launch books without first verifying of their worthiness. His books were well received and discussed in the media as referenced . A police officer being also an eminent writer is in itself remarkable and notable. His achievements found wide publicity in Indian media. His professional work in police related to a period prior to November 2006 when he retired from the Indian Police Service. That was not the time of widescale use of internet , at least in India. Hence, searching for notability for such a person by references listed on internet would not be correct. The gentleman created a new benchmark of work ethics ,the same having been recognised by award of various medals including President's Police Medal for Distinguished Service.

Note: I am the creator of the article . Hence, I am putting forward my views this way, as I am blocked on regular channel due to some misunderstanding for which I will appeal 2405:204:3018:C64B:98E1:D68D:4249:1924 ( talk) 13:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

"His achievements found wide publicity in Indian media." - would you be able to provide further sources for that? I don't think the current citations in the article qualify as proof of "wide publicity", or really as proof of the achievements at all. The entire Awards/Achievement paragraph has no inline citations. ObsidianPotato ( talk) 15:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I've struck the vote since you claim to be the creator whose block is a CU block for sock-puppetry. Please restore only if the block is lifted. Hemantha ( talk) 09:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: I've been trying to independently confirm some of the information, e.g. the President’s Police Medal for Distinguished Service in 1993 (or 1994? - the article gives two different dates). Unfortunately, it's really hard - for instance I'm unable to access https://www.punjabpolice.gov.in/medal_dis_services.aspx which could provide us with a source.

I find @ Necrothesp's arguments for keeping at the very least noteworthy but I'm struggling to see how to reach sufficient verifiability for this article. Pending further sources - perhaps there is information in Punjabi or some other language that I wouldn't be able to access.

I agree that the article in its current state has severe WP:NPOV and sourcing issues - but as said that isn't particularly relevant to the notability discussion. ObsidianPotato ( talk) 23:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

As a creator of the article, I am answering to concerns of Obsidian Potato, esteemed member of Wikipedia community-

(1) President's Police Medal for Distinguished Service ( known as PPM in short). It was awarded under an order of the President of India on the occasion of Indian Independence Day 1993 (15 August) on the recommendation of Goverment of Punjab and Government of India. The medal as such was, however, presented to the awardee in 1994 , as per practice, in a ceremony at Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy , Phillaur ( Punjab) in 1994 at the time of Annual Passing Out Parade , by the then Chief Minister Punjab , Beant Singh, as shown correctly in photo. However, in the heading over the photo, 1994 needs to be changed to 1993 which I will do once I get access.

Since, the award relates to 1993 , it may or may not be verifiable online as it was pre-internet era.

Other awards and achievements are also real; photos of two have been posted . In respect of that at SN 9 ( reward for arrest of dangerous Interpol criminal of Canada ), the copy of the letter can be posted but it has the name of the " dangerous criminal" who after arrest was extradited to Canada where after undergoing 20 years' imprisonment, he was out of jail , and hence can pose danger to the life of the subject of the article, if the name is disclosed.

Other medals are also shown worn by the officer in photo, some of which medals were war time medals of 1971 ( Indo-Pak war of 1971) for duties in areas bordering Pakistan. Some are for duties in the period of terrorism in Punjab ( 1981-1996).

Online verification of these may not be possible as these relate to pre-internet era.

(2) Notability - As already mentioned, the subject of the article was in active service of Indian Police Service(IPS) from 1969-2006, much of which relates to pre-internet era. His works in various capacities including district superintendent of police in two important districts and as DIG, CBI( Govt of India) and later as IG Commando of Punjab State ( 1992-1994, an important period of Punjab terrorism phase ) were reported in newspapers quite often but these related to pre-internet era, and hence online availability of these , in the very nature of things, cannot be expected. "India Today" , a well known national fortnightly magzine of India had carried a several-pages story on Punjab Commando Force during 1992-1994 when the subject was its head as Inspector General of Police , he being the first IG Commando having raised 5 batallions of the force which fought terrorism very successfully . Naturally, online link to the Article in "India Today" would not be available. Moreover, newspapers in post-internet era have made the online papers a paid service and hence online links to even such news would not be accessible ( without payment). Links obtained by payment would be openable by subscriber only. This is the limitation in this case. However, reference at SN 5 has his name at number 4 listing some of his achievements (not all).

The subject of the article is a well known figure , now more than 75 years, and after having put in a very notable service in police career for 37 years , has now turned a writer where he has shown remarkable talent. References are already mentioned.

The notability of the subject ,seen in totality and in correct perspective , is not in doubt. 47.31.96.226 ( talk) 05:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you for a detailed answer. I understand that internet sources might not exist, or might be difficult to find. However, foreign-language sources, subscription-locked sources, as well as paper sources including books and newspapers, are also acceptable (as long as they are published, verifiable and properly quoted).

I recommend you re-read WP:V, WP:RS, and look at derivative policy articles/essays for further advice (e.g. WP:NOTTRUTH). You can also use tools like the Wayback Machine to access internet sites that aren't available anymore. Unfortunately, as per the verifiability policy, this article needs citations, not assertions. ObsidianPotato ( talk) 10:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

IPsock post struck. @ ObsidianPotato: please don't ask questions of blocked users in deletion discussions, as they are not allowed to make any edits to Wikipedia except to request that their block be lifted, which they must do on the talk page of their account, User talk:Sneha-SIPL. -- bonadea contributions talk 20:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Bonadea thank you, I was not aware of that. I was working under the assumption that edits by blocked users should only be autodeleted/reverted if they are unjustified, misleading, and/or damaging Wikipedia. ObsidianPotato ( talk) 23:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep I agree with what Necrothesp said. The article is a bit of a mess as it stands, but that's a question of content, not of notability. Atchom ( talk) 01:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete There's 10+ kb discussion but not a single WP:SIRS source has been identified. The only WP:RS links in the article are to Tribune; all of which are subject's own columns and are completely useless for this WP:BLP page. The only reliable book review, again Tribune, specifically says it's a "Tribune Short" and devotes a single paragraph. Hence WP:NAUTHOR is also not an avenue. I've tried a Punjabi search which hasn't given anything. If there aren't any sources, it's impossible to write an article. Hemantha ( talk) 09:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2000 Italian Grand Prix. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Death of Paolo Gislimberti

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

Am the creator of this article but am no longer seeing the benefit of having a stand-alone article for this subject. All information would be better off at the article of the event he died at. MWright96 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MWright96 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. MWright96 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MWright96 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Merge to 2000 Italian Grand Prix per nom. MWright96, I'm not sure AfD is the right venue for this; probably could have been better by just making a merge request at the talk page, or even boldly completed the merge yourself. Just food for thought for next time :] - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" 18:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon ( talk) 06:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Merge to 2000 Italian Grand Prix. Event doesn't pass WP:GNG, and person is a clear case of WP:1E, as only known for means of his death. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Merge to 2000 Italian Grand Prix - Simple case of WP:1E 79.73.102.134 ( talk) 10:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Relisted twice and no consensus is formed. The most significant issue is a statement about a potential copyvio by Piotrus, but with no source given. Piotrus please check this source and nominate for the relevant copyvio process if proven. (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Henryk Breit

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

This article has existed for 12 years with no sources. The only sources I found appeared to be Wikipedia mirrors. I am not sure I found anything that even verifies his existence, clearly nothing that shows that he is notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Poland. Shellwood ( talk) 14:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment I see Google book sources in Polish though whether they amount to sustained in-depth coverage I can’t tell. Hopefully Polish speakers will be able to shed some light. Mccapra ( talk) 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment. I've found a source for the article, the problem is it's "too good", as in - our article is a perfect translation, word for word, from it, so WP:COPYVIO is a likely issue. The source is a biographical note in an article by him, with no indication who wrote the note, and based on what sources. The magazine it was published in is a very minor, local historical periodical, although reliable, think bottom rung historical journal ( pl:Cracovia Leopolis). Regarding the sources mentioned by @ Mccapra, I took a look (I am a Polish speaker). There are several citations to him, and mentions in passing, but I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV. Based other visible snippets, he was somebody important enough that several folks mentioned him, briefly, in their diaries/memoirs, and his works were cited a few times, but overall there is little so show he meets NBIO. That said, it's possible there is something not digitized that we are not picking up, after all, the 2006 short biography I found is based on something. It's a very borderline case, there are signs better sources may exist (as much as I hate WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES), but I cannot locate them. (He is briefly mentioned in a interview with his daughter published in a 2018 issue of the same magazine, [29], but that's a very brief mention). Frankly, I'd probably we at "weak delete", given we cannot find better sources, but I am a bit inclusionist for Polish history, and again, the odds that there is something more, just not digitized yet, aren't very bad here, so there's that. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 10:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 19:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon ( talk) 06:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Kwiat Jabłoni

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

Possible Promotional paid job on a musical band that fails to meet any criterion from WP:BAND, a before search doesn’t show me reliable sources that the band is notable, nor do they meet any criterion that suggests notability. Note that the article creator has been content forking and/ walking, they also created this non notable article; Katarzyna Sienkiewicz which is also nominated for deletion. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. Definitely falls short of the guidelines in WP:BAND, and I agree that I suspect this is a paid promotion. Additionally the page is tagged as using deprecated sources, though I'm unable to tell which references they are. aismallard ( talk) 21:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep, very popular band in Poland. Two LPs, three Platinums, PL Video Music Awards in 2018, constantly on radio Marcelus ( talk) 07:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep: their first album reached no. 7 in Poland, the second one reached no. 1 [30]. The platinum and double platinum certifications for the first and second albums, respectively, which are listed in the article also check out. The debut single has a triple platinum certification and the second one has been certified platinum as well [31]. This may be paid editing, but they are definitely popular and notable in their home country. Richard3120 ( talk) 13:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't say popular, but borderline notable in the context of Wikipedia, yes. Weak keep from me per Marcelus and Richard. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon ( talk) 06:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Strong keep: easily meets WP:BAND for Poland.
- @1. Talked about in a number of independent sources, e.g. Wyborcza, Wirtualna Polska, and more.
- @2. Lista_Przebojów_Programu_Trzeciego is one of, if not the most famous music chart in Poland.
- @3. Sales certifications - the English OLiS article is mediocre, but the list is definitely legit and published by ZPAV (see also the Polish Wiki article [32]).
- @5. Both albums released with Agora (company), [33] [34] which should qualify as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable". [35]

...etc. It satisfies a number of points in the WP:BAND list (note that the criterion is you really only need one). The suspicions about the author aren't particularly relevant to the nominator's notability claim + it's entirely plausible that the same independent editor might want to create both articles. ObsidianPotato ( talk) 14:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Shashie Verma

AfDs for this article:

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

Fails WP:NACTOR, Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Most of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE and WP:ADMASQ. - Hatchens ( talk) 07:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 07:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 07:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Weak Delete - This article does not speak for itself and does not show that the subject is notable. The roles listed in the Filmography are either minor roles or not described in the film articles. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 21:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete: per nom, roles listed in subject's filmography all seem to be minor after IMDb review. Tow ( talk) 23:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Tow Imdb isn’t a reliable source to check his work. He acted as Khanna in the movie Bala. [36] he played as CISF Inspector in the film Bunty Aur Babli 2 [37] and as Police man in Flesh. [38] also he played a noted character Mr. Gupta in Chalo Koi Baat Nahi. [39]]. “Shashie Verma, who was seen playing pivotal roles in Shorgul, Bala and Panchayat, will be seen essaying the role of a cop in Swara Bhasker-starrer web series Flesh” mentioned in Tribune India. [40] He passes WP:NACTOR. When you are voting for an afd, you should check everything thoroughly.

IndaneLove ( talk) 03:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply

As per your links, he played the role of 'Hair Transplant Doctor' in Bala. I reviewed the other movies & shows as well. I reviewed your sources. I don't see how any of these are significant roles. The roles were not even notable enough to have been listed on the Bunty Aur Babli 2 & Chalo Koi Baat Nahi Wikipedia pages it seems. Tow ( talk) 04:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Tow How can you judge that if he has played a hair transplant doctor then it’s a minor character. Maybe he has appeared in full movie. As Tribune India claimed that he played pivotal roles in Shorgul, Bala and Panchayat. Also check this source for Shorgul he played as Shiva. [41] IndaneLove ( talk) 04:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I know it is minor because he isn't even listed once in the synopsis. Tow ( talk) 04:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Well, it’s according to you but not as per sources.

IndaneLove ( talk) 04:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon ( talk) 06:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete: No evidence of playing significant roles to meet NACTOR. Need film reviews, independent articles, awards etc to determine the significance, not just an editor's own perception -- Ab207 ( talk) 11:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Ian Schaffa

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

Fails WP:NBOX, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA. Being champion of the state of New South Wales does not meet notability criteria. LibStar ( talk) 02:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Martial arts, Wrestling, and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG, in addition to the fighting-specific aforementioned notability marks. NiklausGerard ( talk) 06:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete He doesn't meet the notability criteria for boxers or kickboxers. He does appear to have four top tier MMA fights, which does meet WP:NMMA. However, he won none of those fights and won only 7 of his 18 pro MMA fights. The most important thing is that my search did not find the significant independent coverage in multiple sources that WP:GNG requires. Papaursa ( talk) 23:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon ( talk) 05:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

why was this relisted? Consensus is quite clear here. LibStar ( talk) 06:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Vik Grujic

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Not an extensive career and sourcing is not independent. LibStar ( talk) 03:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Coverage consists mainly of fight results with some promotional pieces on upcoming fights. Nothing that shows significant independent coverage. Papaursa ( talk) 15:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Slunt

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero sourcing found. Kept in 2007 because of reviews that are now 404 and don't seem to be from reputable sites. Also including the album. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 01:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 01:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Found a non-404 review here: [42] and a mention here: [43] (he says they disbanded in 2007 so maybe we can source & add something about that and save the article?). The albums probably don't deserve separate articles regardless. ObsidianPotato ( talk) 03:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure Fringe Underground is an RS, as they don't seem to have any editors. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 04:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

This list [44] from May 2004 very briefly mentions Slunt. Not really a source for any of the current content but it at least kinda confirms they existed. ObsidianPotato ( talk) 10:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Another review here: [45] ObsidianPotato ( talk) 11:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

A Wordpress blog is definitely not a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 15:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Found one more [46] by what is I think a KBUE magazine? ObsidianPotato ( talk) 15:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

That site's content appears to be user submitted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 15:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Reluctant Delete - I am familiar with this band and saw them live back in the day, and I can attest that they had some underground credibility at the time. Alas, I am surprised to find that they attracted very little mainstream notice. Searching is tough because the band's name is also a purported slang term, but a search in conjunction with the names of band members also reveals little. For the band, I can find nothing beyond the partial and/or unreliable reviews mentioned in the discussion above; note that singer Abby Gennet has a little media notice for her later activities but the band is only ever mentioned briefly. Also note that they have two album articles at Get a Load of This (album) and Slunt (EP), which should at least be redirected in the event that the band's article survives. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Neutral: On one hand, I agree that the article is really hard to source and the notability is questionable/borderline. Objectively, however, I can't see what changed since the 2007 discussion, and so as per WP:NTEMP by deleting it now we would essentially be disputing that decision. If the two published albums made the band notable back then, it should also be notable now. PS: The two album articles - Get_a_Load_of_This (album), Slunt (EP) - fail WP:NALBUM and so they should be deleted/merged, and redirected into the main article. ObsidianPotato ( talk) 23:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete: Changing my vote as per discussion - Even though it seems kinda close with the two released albums, I think it's unlikely sufficient coverage/sources exist to justify this article. ObsidianPotato ( talk) 18:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply

What changed since 2007 is that the notability rules for musicians at WP:NBAND have gotten tougher, and it is now necessary to prove that the band got more than a few blog-like reviews and gig announcements. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 19:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

[1] Amorim-Maia, Ana T.; Anguelovski, Isabelle; Chu, Eric; Connolly, James (January 2022). "Intersectional climate justice: A conceptual pathway for bridging adaptation planning, transformative action, and social equity". Urban Climate. 41: 101053. doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2021.101053.

[2] Ramsay, Adam (2014). "My environmentalism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit". OpenDemocracy. ProQuest 1509705243.

[3] Vaughn, Sarah E.; Guarasci, Bridget; Moore, Amelia (21 October 2021). "Intersectional Ecologies: Reimagining Anthropology and Environment". Annual Review of Anthropology. 50 (1): 275–290. doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110241.

[4] McKee, Emily (March 2021). "Divergent visions: Intersectional water advocacy in Palestine". Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space. 4 (1): 43–64. doi: 10.1177/2514848620909386.

[5] Connors, Sean P; Seelinger, Roberta Trites (2021). ""I'd Become a Part of a System": Examining Intersectional Environmentalism in Literature for Young Readers". Journal of Children's Literature. 47 (1): 73–83. ProQuest 2575545202.

[6] Thompson-Hall, Mary; Carr, Edward R.; Pascual, Unai (December 2016). "Enhancing and expanding intersectional research for climate change adaptation in agrarian settings". Ambio. 45 (S3): 373–382. doi: 10.1007/s13280-016-0827-0.

[7] Hathaway, Julia Robertson (2 January 2020). "Climate Change, the Intersectional Imperative, and the Opportunity of the Green New Deal". Environmental Communication. 14 (1): 13–22. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2019.1629977.

[8] Spears, Ellen Griffith (2020). "Intersectional Activism and Climate Justice (2001–Present)". Rethinking the American environmental movement post-1945. New York, NY: Routledge. pp. 197–235. ISBN 9780203081693.

[9] Kings, A E (2017). "Intersectionality and the Changing Face of Ecofeminism". Ethics and the Environment. 22 (1): 63. doi: 10.2979/ethicsenviro.22.1.04.

[10] James, Dana; Mack, Trevor (25 December 2020). "Toward an ethics of decolonizing allyship in climate organizing: reflections on Extinction Rebellion Vancouver". Journal of Human Rights and the Environment. 11 (3): 32–53. doi: 10.4337/jhre.2020.03.02.

[11] Ducre, Kishi Animashaun (2 January 2018). "The Black feminist spatial imagination and an intersectional environmental justice". Environmental Sociology. 4 (1): 22–35. doi: 10.1080/23251042.2018.1426089.

[12] Nixon, Rob (2011). Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Harvard University Press. pp. 138–142. ISBN 978-0-674-04930-7.

[13] Jr. Willis L. Shirk (2018). A History of the Atomic Space Age and Its Implications for the Future. Dog Ear Publishing. pp. 71–86. ISBN 9781457561450.

[14] United States Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (1946). Hearings and Reports on Atomic Energy (Report). Vol. 86. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 103.

[15] United States Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (1974). AEC Authorizing Legislation, Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Legislation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States ... Congress ... Session on AEC Autorizing Legislation · Part 4. U.S. Government Printing Office. pp. 2401–2403.

[16] United States House Committee on Appropriations (1963). Independent Offices Appropriations for 1964, Hearings Before a Subcommittee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Eighty-eighth Congress, First Session · Volume 20, Part 3 (Report). U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 474.

[17] United States Atomic Energy Commission (1971). The Nuclear Industry. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 128.

[18] "Sunshine into electricity". Popular Science. April 1981. pp. 76–79.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook