The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there is less discussion here of the substance of the sources than I would like, the arguments that the sources in the article provide significant coverage are not obviously wrong, and so I cannot close this any other way. Vanamonde ( Talk) 04:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Claudio Parra

Claudio Parra (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Chilean musician with no notability outside band. Was previously redirected to Los Jaivas as per WP:BANDMEMBER. John B123 ( talk) 17:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. John B123 ( talk) 17:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. John B123 ( talk) 17:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. John B123 ( talk) 17:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• I think he is absolutely notable, the article might need more accurate references but he is one of the most important keyboardist of the history of Latin America. I guess that hundreds of pornstars and third division soccer players are more notable than him?. Tommy Boy ( talk) 17:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Tommy Boy: see WP:BANDMEMBER... "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability". Can you show that Parra has any notability outside of the band, apart from having famous family members, which would be an WP:INHERITED notability? Richard3120 ( talk) 21:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Although sources are influenced by his Jaivas membership, Parra is a prominent keyboardist and merits his own article, as he is notable by himself. I found several sources, such as that of Música Popular and some books, which go into detail on his work. -- Bedivere ( talk) 23:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep If you read the references in spanish, you can notice he is a stand out musician, which is explicitly said: Claudio Parra is undoubtedly one of the most transcendent Chilean musicians of the last 50 years. Tommy Boy ( talk) 15:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • As part of Los Jaivas, yes. You still haven't shown how he is notable outside of the band. Richard3120 ( talk) 16:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Los Jaivas as per nom. If, as has been suggested by the keep votes, he was such an outstanding musician, he would have more in-depth coverage of him outside the band. As it stands, and searches did not turn up anything additional, all the coverage is in context to the band. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Los Jaivas per Onel5969. Sources are specific to there; subject lacks independent notability. Garnarblarnar ( talk) 00:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep I don't read Spanish very well, but based on Tommy Boy's post, he is clearly notable as a stand alone musician. The articles, from the title certainly appear to be discussing him, rather than the band, thus meeting WP:RS. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 03:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • They don't really – they are either wishing him happy birthday as a member of a famous band, being the sole surviving member of a famous band, or being interviewed as the keyboard player of a famous band. In short, all the sources are very much tied to him being part of Los Jaivas, and as far as I'm aware, he hasn't done anything notable outside of the band. Richard3120 ( talk) 16:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep Many of the sources give significant coverage to Parra. -- Mike  🗩 14:38, 13 January 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Azerbaijan–Fiji relations

Azerbaijan–Fiji relations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. There really isn't much to these relations, 1 meeting of foreign ministers at the side of the UN General Assembly, trade is tiny, no agreements or embassies. LibStar ( talk) 23:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Very thin article - non notable relationship between these two countries. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 03:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• How can you say that an annual export of goods worth 7.54 dollars is tiny? Oh well, delete. Geschichte ( talk) 08:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• [sqeaky angry whingey voice]: What how dare anyone nominate this!! I'll have you know that the prime minister of Fiji ran into the Azerbaijani charge'd'affairs at a in charity event in Sydney! Clearly this indicates the existence of substantial and notable bilateral relations! Nominating this was just trolling and the nominator should be... [remaining 15 paragraphs removed]. 😁 Obviously, delete. Very similar to the AfD for Turkey-Kiribati relations, maybe we need a bulk AfD for most of these articles about relations between Eastern European/ex-USSR nations and Pacific Island nations? These AfDs for them are quite amusing, but probably waste a bit more time than they need to. (example: this comment) Mako001  (C)   (T)  01:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment - yes I don't know why someone created all these very marginal articles about countries that are *very* unlikely to have substantial relationsips - but I unfortunately spend a lot of my time voting to delete them (and mostly they are). Deathlibrarian ( talk) 06:04, 15 January 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 Operation Atalanta with the option to merge verifiable content. Vanamonde ( Talk) 04:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Action of 5 April 2010

Action of 5 April 2010 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable "action" with no long term impact. As an alternative to deletion, can be merged back into the Operation Atalanta page. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Operation Atalanta, given the press release and YouTube video. While this might have been a minor action at the time and doesn't meet our EVENT guideline, documentation of individual actions where available may help the operation article. BusterD ( talk) 23:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge to HNLMS Tromp (F803) or Operation Atalanta, unreferenced and not particularly notable. Mztourist ( talk) 03:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge to one of both of suggested targets. Such individual actions are not notable enough to deserve an article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Long enough to be kept. Sufficient sources and long term effects to meet WP:EVENT via WP:NEXIST. gidonb ( talk) 02:36, 17 January 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 Operation Ocean Shield. Clear consensus that a standalone article is inappropriate, and a merger is required. No consensus on the target; I'm including Operation Ocean Shield in the closing statement only because XfDcloser will throw a fit otherwise. Vanamonde ( Talk) 04:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Action of 1 April 2010

Action of 1 April 2010 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable "naval engagement". Yes, this occurred, but this incident with Somali pirates is not a notable "battle". Additionally, there is no long term significance of this event. As an ATD, could be merged into Operation Ocean Shield. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge to USS Nicholas (FFG-47), unreferenced and not particularly notable. Mztourist ( talk) 03:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa and perhaps also to the Ship. Not notable enough to need an article of its own. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:44, 13 January 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 23:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Lama Alshamandi

Lama Alshamandi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Entirely unsourced. Web searches give me nothing but wikis and IMDB-like sites. Dubbed a lot of films apparently, but I don't think that's a particularly notable thing. Found this article through Special:Random. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 23:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 23:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless significant coverage in reliable independent sources can be produced. Unreferenced biographies of living people are contrary to policy. Cullen328 ( talk) 01:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:BLP.-- Ts12rAc ^{talk to me} 16:47, 19 January 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, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Libya–Montenegro relations

Libya–Montenegro relations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The fact that Gaddafi's son had a birthday party in Montenegro hardly adds to notable relations. LibStar ( talk) 22:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Nothing to say about this entirely non notable relationship. Mccapra ( talk) 06:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Non notable relationship between these two countries.-- Ts12rAc ^{talk to me} 16:36, 19 January 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 Lafayette, Indiana. ✗ plicit 23:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Neighborhoods of Lafayette, Indiana

Neighborhoods of Lafayette, Indiana (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Slightly more justifed than the corresponding article for West Lafayette: all the blue links are historic districts and justify their separate articles . But there's still no reason for a list outside the main article, which is where anyone interested would look, DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Lafayette, Indiana per nom. Tartar Torte 01:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge per above. NavjotSR ( talk) 06:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge As per nom, merge into Lafayette, Indiana Deathlibrarian ( talk) 13:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Lafayette, Indiana, no need for separate list.-- Ts12rAc ^{talk to me} 16:51, 19 January 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 Lafayette, Indiana. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Neighborhoods of West Lafayette, Indiana

Neighborhoods of West Lafayette, Indiana (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

unjustified split: two of these are historic districts, and justify their own articles (Hills and Dale and Happy Hollow), the other blue links just redirect to the main article DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Merge per reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neighborhoods of Lafayette, Indiana. Waddles  🗩  🖉 20:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge - No need for a standalone article. Facepalm. Platonk ( talk) 06:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Lafayette, Indiana. A stand alone list article is unjustified at this point. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 15:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge As per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:06, 21 January 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 23:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Shelley Sullivan

Shelley Sullivan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Hopelessly promotional and so minimally notable (if at all) to be not worth fixing. Most of the references are promotional or trivial material. Most of the content is, correspondingly, trivial or promotional material.

The original editor in 2007 was a single purpose editor who has not contributed anything else at all almost all subsequent edits were made by a succession of other spas, culminating in someone whose username was so obvious as to attract attention, (Rebecca Sullivan ModelCo ) DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete probable WP:COI editing. Fails WP:BIO. Most of her awards are not notable. LibStar ( talk) 23:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Libstar - fails WP:BIO and likely COI editing. Deus et lex ( talk) 00:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment Are the awards notable, or just padding the article. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - @ Oaktree b: they just seem to be padding. If you do some research, the way some of the awards are referenced in the article make it look like they are more prestigious than they actually are - e.g. the subject of the article didn't actually receive the national Businesswoman of the Year award by Telstra in 2004, she just received a "Telstra Business Owner Award" (search this link to see - she's under Shelley Williams); similarly the EY Entrepeneur of the Year award is an international award, but she only received a "Young Entrepreneur" award and it was only the Australian award (and neither of them are referenced on the main awards page). Obtaining the top award in either category would be notable but I don't think the two awards she has received of themselves are enough to keep the article. Deus et lex ( talk) 22:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete- per nom. Agree she fails WP:GNG; agree WP:COI; agree page created/developed by WP:SPA. Also note page appears deliberately curated so as to appear to pass GNG. Cabrils ( talk) 00:39, 14 January 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 04:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Action of 23 April 1945

Action of 23 April 1945 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

1. This is a skirmish within an engagement. Neither primary nor secondary sources consider this material enough to be a battle in its own right. 2. This is written by an indefinitely suspended user with a history of adding essays to wikipedia. 3. It lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. The engagement between a German submarine and an American on April 23, 1945 is not described as a battle in its own right by reliable sources. It would be better to delete the page and ensure any sourced details are recorded instead in the article about the USS Besugo 4. Given that this "battle" is not documented elsewhere, it is a new battle as theorised by the creator's original research. This battle honor is not recognized as such by the United States Navy. His creations have the prefix "Action of" and a suffix of the date in British English format, to emulate the manner/format in which certain battle honors of the Royal Navy were recorded from 1847 onwards. It is mentioned on Talk:Action of 12 October 1950 Keith H99 ( talk) 21:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons. These articles contain lots of maybes and probablys. They have a reading list at the foot of the page. They do not have inline citations. These engagements are lacking in significance.

Action of 6 October 1944 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Action of 13 May 1944 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Action of 10 November 1944 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Action of 5 July 1942 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any sourced content should be recorded within the articles for U-168, U-1224, USS Flounder & USS Growler.

Relisted WW2 articles as per request from Peterkingiron Thanks Keith H99 ( talk) 21:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete Always a bad sign when the action in question has no name. Submarine attacks do not normally get their own articles. Agree with nom that it is better recorded in the articles on recorded within the articles on U-168 and USS Besugo. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete Information about these engagements can go in the articles about the various submarines. Cullen328 ( talk) 01:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete all and merge relevant content to relevant ships/submarines. Mztourist ( talk) 03:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

merge relevant content to relevant ships/submarines - done on 13 January Keith H99 ( talk) 14:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete all as suggested by Mztourist. These names are too ambiguous, many things would happen on one day of such a vast conflict as World War II, and it would be quite possible that a similarly notable (whether enough for an article or not is another matter) engagement may have also taken place in a remote island of the Pacific, on the Eastern Front, or on the Western Front for all but the last one, on the same day. Which one would get the article? If articles with this format of title should ever exist, they should be disambiguation pages. Mako001  (C)   (T)  11:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge all -- I would suggest the target should be something like United States anti-submarine operations in Pacific Theater, which is a long enough title without adding WWII to it. The actions are not individually notable enough to require articles. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete This information could be merged into the article about the ship, and der U boat that sank - it's just an engagement between two ships, its not an actual battle. It doesn't get its own article. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 06:42, 14 January 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Amos Dadet

Amos Dadet (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Apparently, he only has appearances in the second tier of Slovenia, so does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL. In my searches, I was unable to locate any coverage that would allow for a passing of WP:GNG. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not GNG and not NFOOTY.-- Mvqr ( talk) 11:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I agree with Spiderone. There is no credible coverage on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpson001 ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Striking this vote per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete! Fails GNG woefully. User:Em-mustapha ^talk 16:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Insufficient significant coverage to demonstrate sufficient notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is no criteria met in WP:NFOOTY which would enable inclusion. No other compelling reason to keep. Article is only one line and not able to be expanded using reliable sources as there does not appear to be any. Such-change47 ( talk) 02:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. ArsenalGhanaPartey ( talk) 20:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I concur with the nomination. I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV for the subject. As such, in light of WP:WINNEROUTCOMES, the consensus has been deletion. GauchoDude ( talk) 13:06, 19 January 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 04:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Keemstar

Keemstar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very much not my field, but I noticed this because of the BLP concerns. Quite apart from the subject, there are a number of living people referred to, many in uncomplimentary terms, based on sourcing which is not acceptable for BLP. It could be argued that any of them are public figures just as much as he is, but this doesnt in my opinion justify an article mainly featuring the negative interactions among them. Apart from being basically written as a BLP violation, sources seem utterly unsubstantial, and I think the appropriate rule is NOTTABLOID. Some of the sources merely cite him peripherally; many are basically promotional notices.

I do not know to what extent this is the standard of referencing and article writing in this subject; if most other articles are like this, we should reconsider how we deal with the field DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment There is no doubt in my mind that Keemstar is notable; if you use YouTube or Twitter, you've probably heard of him before. However, the point about the sourcing is fair. For such a controversial individual, we need high quality sources, and the sources currently in the article are not high quality. It might be worth invoking WP:BLPDELETE here. Mlb96 ( talk) 23:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article is mainly negative because that is how he's mainly covered by the media. While the page does have sourcing issues, the more contentious material is supported by reliable sources. (Note that the daily beast article was written in 2018 when it was considered a generally reliable source) Pabsoluterince ( talk) 09:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep This has to be a joke nomination, or the OP has mistakenly applied a WP principle to this article. Keemstar easily fulfills WP:GNG and WP:BASIC with articles from outlets like The Daily Dot, The Daily Beast, Polygon, Dot Esports and Mashable significantly covering him, his content and his activities on YouTube. Yes, Keemstar's article is filled with an overly lengthy controversy section. But that's because Keem is easily one of the most controversial and notorious online Internet personalities, possibly of all time (as in, Internet historians years from now will remember him in a notorious light like a lot of dubious historical figures). As an online personality who covers such drama and gossip akin to someone like Perez Hilton, of course he would run into such controversies and have sources cover his dilemmas as well. In terms of sourcing, even reliable media outlets that aren't gossip-based have recognized him as such, and have covered the interactions he's had with other content creators, which of course one would reasonably infer as negative (without WP or reliable sources serving to imply such a conclusion). At worst, this is clearly an issue of due weight rather than any BLP violations. Because with someone like Keemstar, let's face it. There's only so much neutrality one may possess when writing articles from reliable sources which cover controversial figures. It's pretty hard to maintain neutrality and keep in line with the sources if those sources are along the lines of "Keemstar did X, he has been criticized for Y, someone accused Keemstar of Z" and so on. But that shouldn't degrade the notability of Keemstar nor the quality of Wikipedia. We're a website that simply summarizes research from reliable sources, and if reliable sources have significantly covered controversies like this, then we would have to include it. Full stop.

Also, this is PantheonRadiance typing this from another country. I randomly saw this today and just had to add my two cents to the discussion. 41.223.132.235 ( talk) 12:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep per PantheonRadiance. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC with many news outlets reporting on him. Fakescientist8000 ( talk) 14:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment My main concern was BLP; the reaction seems to be that he deserves it. As I said, I wanted to see what the WP standards are in this field. I seem to have received an answer. WP is made up quite a number of separate fields with their own practices; we each generally ask only that the peculiarities of our ts fields are respected, and I will not bother ourselves with the similarly peculiar others. At some point, though rarely, something stands out enough to concern the general communit DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 19 January 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 speedy deleted per WP:A7. Anyone can contact an admin to WP:SALT the page to prevent recreation in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{( HAPPY 2022)} 05:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Vuparian

Vuparian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional non notable article for a “Hentai reviewer” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search turns up nothing cogent and literally all articles used in this are all unreliable. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:NBIO. Jumpytoo Talk 21:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete per A7. It had been deleted twice already. Neo-corelight ( Talk) 22:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Oh, and please salt it. Neo-corelight ( Talk) 23:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Article has been speedy deleted, which is the right decision. This is a minor child involved with pornography, referenced only to his tweets. Not acceptable. Cullen328 ( talk) 02:05, 13 January 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 23:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Pure Heart

Pure Heart (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a clearly-defined topic. "Pure heart" is a generic English term, used in all kinds of circumstances. The article paints it as a theological concept, but its definition there isn't meaningfully different from its plain meaning. Vahurzpu ( talk) 20:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu ( talk) 20:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu ( talk) 20:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- This is not a specifically Catholic concept, as the article seeks to imply, but represents a state of being forgiven following the confession of sin. However I do not think the concept is sufficiently well-defined to deserve an article, unless there are theological textbooks (Protstant/Catholic/Orthodox/etc) that can be cited. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Peterkingiron. Mccapra ( talk) 07:05, 19 January 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 Closed as Nomination withdrawn. For the purposes of determining consensus, it further appeared that this was trending toward a keep anyway. Whether it needs a rename is another issue . Star Mississippi 23:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Ismene (moth)

Ismene (moth) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

According to http://www.pyraloidea.org/, which is recognised as an authority on the superfamily, the is an unnaccepted genus (sadly, I can't provide a url to the report, so please visit the site and search for Ismene). This website, which is recognised as an authority on Lepidoptera, gives Ismeme as a junior synonym to Bibasis, but this is a butterfly, not a moth, so this page is not suitable as a redirect. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 09:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep for the moment, but edit text to indicate that the genus isn't accepted. Presumably the moth Ismene pelusia does exist (since it was described), and we don't appear to have any other article on this moth, so if we delete this article, we're losing our sole record of a species. The situation appears to be: someone published a minor moth a very long time ago; a major authority hasn't accepted the nomenclature, but a less-major authority has listed it anyway (the ref in the article). Since we're a tertiary source we can simply summarise that situation and wait for the taxonomists to sort themselves out. Elemimele ( talk) 11:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

That might be a good solution. I don't actually understand what the status of the species is under these circumstances (i.e. parent taxon invalid)? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep The National History Museum says its a real Genus. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/butmoth/search/GenusDetails.dsml?NUMBER=14837.0 It mentions where to find a picture at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/29156473#page/108/mode/1up Dream Focus 05:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Dream Focus: Please look again at this. The Ismene you link to says it is a junior homonym to Ismene Savigny, 1816, and a junior synonym to Bibasis (which I pointed out in my rationale), which is a butterfly, not a moth. The picture you link to is also clearly a butterfly. The NHM does list Ismene as a moth here, but states that the genus is unconfirmed, all of which takes us back to my original point. The question now is, should we retain the article when it is of an unconfirmed or unaccepted? YorkshireExpat ( talk) 09:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Can the article be named "Ismene (butterfly or moth)" which seems accurate per this discussion, and explain within the page? Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn and Dream Focus: This doesn't seem to me to be a particularly reasonable thing to do. Given the localities of the two genera (the moth in Egypt, and the butterfly in Indomalaya) and the fact that the authorities are differnt, I reckon the naming was conincidental. Ismene is a character in Greek mythology with a few things named after her, so it's not a case of it being either a butterfly or a moth, just the name being used twice to describe different things (the name is also used for a plant genus, which is fine, botanists and zoologists can use the same name, but neither can use the same name twice, hence synonyms and homonyms). The moth is unconfirmed, and therefore the question is does it merit a page of it's own. I would argue not. The butterfly already has a page under the senior synonym (but the info could do with adding, something for me to do perhaps). YorkshireExpat ( talk) 23:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete since the genus is unconfirmed. A reputable encyclopedia wouldn't have an article dedicated to "there might be a genus of moth called Ismene, or maybe people are getting it confused with the butterfly". A note on the existing page for the butterfly genus would suffice for this purpose. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes, if I'm interpreting it correctly, we have a perfectly respectable primary description of a new species (a sole member of a new genus), the moth, but its genus name has not been accepted, and the genus name clashes with another, completely separate described genus, the butterfly. As a result, there's a taxonomic dilemma that hasn't been resolved (presumably because the moth isn't sufficiently important for the taxonomists to have got round to sorting it out yet). I don't think it's appropriate to reduce the moth to a note in the article about the butterfly because the moth has nothing to do with it, beyond an accident of naming. This AfD already shows the danger of converting a mess-up of naming into a general misunderstanding about whether there's a single Ismene that might be a moth or a butterfly, or two different Ismenes. I don't think deletion is ideal, because the moth presumably exists, and we accept articles at species-level. It's just that currently its naming is a mess. This is an example of science-in-progress, it's not unusual for species to change names, come and go, merge into other groups, or get separated out; we can only describe the story as it is. Hence my original suggestion to keep with an explanation of the situation. Elemimele ( talk) 09:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per MrsSnoozyTurtle. Whatever the issues are with the naming of the thing the references don't seem to be there to support an article about it anyway. In the meantime I think a good argument could be made that this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. I say create the article in a few years when the genus is actually confirmed and there's enough references to justify something that's not just a basic listing. If I was stretching things I could also say this should be deleted as a type of hoax article. Although, I don't think we need to go that far with it to justify deleting the article. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 11:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

According to Wikipedia's current state-of-the-art, which is unfortunately a policy that failed to gain full consensus and therefore leaves us floating in doubt, species are notable (see WP:NSPECIES). This article is about a single species of moth, which is why I'm very reticent about deleting; in general there does seem to be a feeling that a species is an inherently notable thing (while varieties and subspecies are not). I think we're stretching a point to describe it as WP:TOOSOON given that it was described 206 years ago, in 1816. I'm not going to defend Ismene (moth)'s existence to the death as I assume no one really cares about this moth, and there's not much to say about it, but I just want people aware that this seems to be removal of our entire record of a genuine species, not a spurious bit of fluff-clean-up. Elemimele ( talk) 16:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Elemimele: but the name is not valid, as required by WP:NSPECIES, because the genus is unconfirmed. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Ismene Pelusia? ^{[1] [2]}

I have not read these sources. I do believe they exist, FWIW. Simply bringing them to your attention. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 18:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I have not read, and do not have access to, these sources, so can't confirm or refute anything with these. However, Lepindex here says the genus is unconfirmed, and ITIS does not appear to have any listing for the species (which is not particularly unusual). YorkshireExpat ( talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• The article's creator was not told about this AFD. I posted on their talk page to inform them of it and ask where their source is from. Their user page states they created 8,200 articles, I assume mostly with some sort of bot creating things like this. I'm curious where they got their information from. Dream Focus 13:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Dream Focus: The creator seems to have been inactive for a couple of years. Also, references on this aren't terribly hard to find. There are plenty in the taxonbar. The question is which are the most relevant. The ones I give at the start of this are dedicated to Lepidopterology, as is Lepindex. ITIS is a data aggregator and less reliable. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 17:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep if this is a real genus (which seems in contention) then the article is a stub that needs to be expanded. Caleb Stanford ( talk) 02:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment to add some confusion to the discussion, here is a bulletin of the British Museum which points us to Hypermnestra helios with an existing link there in the "Nomenclature" section. Ismene Nickerl, 1846 an invalid junior homonym to Savigny's Ismene. At least in 1907 there was no other published reference to Ismene pelusia. [1]. Savigny 1816 is Marie Jules César Savigny Mémoires sur les animaux sans vertèbres p. 34. fiveby( zero) 22:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Westwood, J. O. (1839). An introduction to the modern classification of insects; founded on the natural habits and corresponding organisation of the different families. Vol. 2. pp. 398–9. has some illustrations within a description of Pyralidae
• Should also look at Strigina and Lyndia. For Minyas the disambig redirects to Bombyx.

Good work @ Fiveby:! On the first points, what you're finding are instances where other taxonomists have tried to use the name Ismene, but couldn't because it was already claimed by Savigny. Clearly, before the Internet, it was much harder to check if a name had already been used or not. The fact that Ismene was used isn't surprising as she is a figure in Greek mythology, and taxonomic names often use this as a source of inspiration. So, Nickerl couldn't reuse the name, but then it was found that the species he described was part of another genus, Hypermnestra, who is also a classical figure. None of this changes the fact that Savigny's Ismene has not been accepted.

On your other findings Strigina appears to be a junior synonym, which shouldn't have a page of it's own. I will redirect it accordingly like Minyas (moth). Lyndia seems to ba a similar case to Ismene and should be deleted, but I missed this when I edited it myself -_-, so thanks. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 10:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I am surprised this situation does not arise more often, but maybe i am not searching the archives correctly. The closest precedent i can find is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coeloria elegans, but that coral was once recognized and here we have a monotypic genus and a 200 year old description of only head and mouth parts. @ Loopy30:, @ Robert McClenon:, any help? fiveby( zero) 13:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC) oops, @ Nick Moyes:. fiveby( zero) 14:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep if necessary ignoring any rules to the contrary, so that we have at least a stub on a species that has been documented, and all of the higher-level taxons to which it belongs. If there is an alternate name, we can worry about which is the primary, and have other names redirect. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep for reasons cited by User:Elemimele and User:Robert McClenon. And User:Dream Focus. WP:Verifiability is sufficient. Cf., WP:Truth. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

7&6=thirteen Robert McClenon But that's the point, there is no verifiability here. The most reputable sources say that the thing isn't accepted. It is effectively imaginary. We don't have articles on imaginary species (apart from Yetis and Unicorns of course). YorkshireExpat ( talk) 16:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I think even a 200 year old partial description of a specimen collected 18 years prior and by a zoologist with failing eyesight is verifiable. But is a monotypic species inquirenda(?) stub (which will always be a stub) useful? I'd say no, as long as there are entries in Wikidata and Wikispecies, but would like to hear from more taxonomy geeks. The encyclopedic content and work should be in the Savigny biography: works, named species, what happened to his collection and artwork? fiveby( zero) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Fiveby, Dyanega, Peter coxhead, and Plantdrew: I am pinging some people who you may consider to be 'taxonomy geeks', and am hoping they are not too offended by that categorisation. They have discussed lepidopterology with me before, and I would be happy to for their thoughts here. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 16:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep There is indisputable evidence that Savigny named the genus, and that the name is valid. Yes, that it is incertae sedis does confound things. BUT - and this is important - a name that is incertae sedis is more grounded, so to speak, than a name that is a nomen dubium. Were I treating Wikipedia as a taxonomic index, I would include names in the former category but exclude names in the latter category. Why? Because incertae sedis means that we know there is an actual organism, and its name is accepted, and while we don't know where exactly it should be classified, we presume this is attainable. As such, the problem is strictly taxonomic, and could be resolved at some point. In this case, we know there's a moth, we know it's a pyralid in the broad sense, and the potential exists to definitively track down its identity. Should that happen, this article will either point to itself, or point to another article, if this proves to be a synonym of another taxon. A nomen dubium, on the other hand, means a name where we will never actually know what it refers to - i.e., we don't know whether we should accept its name - and as such, the problem is not only both taxonomic and nomenclatural, but there is no possibility of definitively tracking down its identity. Such an article would never point anywhere else, and has little meaning or relevance in and of itself - very much NOT notable. While Ismene is only marginally notable, that is not true of all names like it (especially among fossil taxa, some of which are quite famous), and I would argue that this and other articles like it should be kept as a matter of principle. Dyanega ( talk) 20:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Dyanega: Thanks for this. I'm not so worried about the fact that it is incertae sedis; many pyralid genera are at different levels. However, could you shed any light on the reason for the genus being 'invalid' or 'unaccepted' in the refs I cite at the start of this thread, and what the ramifications of that would be? I was thinking I might the species elsewhere as a synonym of another crambid moth, but no luck. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 21:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The link a Pyraloidea.org just says "unrecognized taxon". I don't know what that's supposed to mean without details of their reasoning. Savigny provided a figure, even, so one is compelled to assume that the folks at Pyraloidea.org simply don't know what existing species that figure corresponds to. It's a puzzle, yes, but one that should be possible to answer. Would I bother to create an article in WP for such a species? Probably not, but once it has been created, it harms nothing to leave it in place; maybe it will inspire someone to seek a resolution. Dyanega ( talk) 17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Dyanega: Thanks for the reply. In that case I think I must withdraw. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 20:15, 18 January 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. I just want to note that those arguing for keep on the basis that this has survived three previous AFDs are using an invalid argument. First of all consensus can change, and secondly, in this case, it most certainly has. The first two AFDs kept on the basis that high schools and above are automatically notable. This is no longer the consensus and guidelines have since changed.

This close should not be taken as evidence that the article is without neutrality or promotional problems and does not preclude the article being entirely rewritten or stubifying. Spinning Spark 14:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Darul Huda Islamic University

Darul Huda Islamic University (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Requesting to delete and salt all articles, and block all suspected accounts. This institution is a self-styled and unaccredited university based in Kerala. A group of people, including students, alumni, staff members and paid editors who work as writers, authors, journalists in leading news agencies like The New Indian Express and Gulf Times, and news portals like TwoCircles.net, and Wikipedians, presenting an institution that does not even have a primary school as a university based on its own press releases, books, articles and self-created web profiles instead of independent evidence and they offer the kind of degrees or PGs offered by accredited universities.

Read more at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting cross-wiki investigation against Darul Huda Islamic Academy

. Sabeelul hidaya ( talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya ( talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya ( talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya ( talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya ( talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya ( talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya ( talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete and salt all From what I can tell it seems like all or most of the references in the article are written by people who are connected to the academy and for the purpose of promating it. Even if that wasn't the case though the article aren't up to Wikipedia's standards anyway. For instance the article "Four Muslim students from Kerala to address Youth Conference at UN General Assembly" in the Deccan Chronicle wouldn't work for notability IMO even if there was no COI issues with the writer. Another example is that one of the articles from TwoCircles.net, "Darul Huda Islamic University" is about them opening a couple of satellite campuses. Which is extremely WP:MILL. Plus it contains a lot of PROMO puffery like "Darul Huda Islamic University is all set to spread its wings" and "off campuses will be set up apart from initiatives meant to educationally empower Muslims in these states." Neither of those quotes are written from a neutral, un-bias perspective. It's also worth noting that the title for the bhatkallys.com shares the exact same line about the academy "spreading it's wings" that is in the TwoCircles.net article. I'd be pretty surprised if the extremely similar wording was a just a coincidence. Probably the articles were written by the same COI editor. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 12:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep I have went through all the talks and discussions related to Darul Huda Islamic University. And from my findings, I don't think that the article violates any of the Wikipedia rules. The references of the article seems to be genuine.
  1. The Islamic University talking about is notable by the references.
  2. From the article, it's clear that, DHIU is a private Islamic University in Kerala. It has'nt termed itself as a Public University and hence doesn't need other affiliations other than that mentioned.
  3. I didn't find any offence with the sources referenced with the article as mentioned above. The university events have been published on other articles also like The Hindu. I don't think it would be self-published.-- Nezvm ( talk) 16:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply

     Struck as an SPI (trainee) clerk action per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tinkvu ( permalink). Inappropriate tag-team editing by editors with a shared COI. Editors issued only warning. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 03:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya ( talk) 09:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya ( talk) 09:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep, I see no evidence that the articles published in The Hindu [2] and the New Indian Express [3], sources that are generally considered reliable, managed to evade those publications' editorial oversight and were intended as promotion by the author(s). The article may need some cleanup, but that's not an issue for AfD. Huon ( talk) 18:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply

It doesn't really matter if article in the New Indian Express is reliable or not since it's about a student magazine. Which isn't what this article is about. Otherwise, how does that article address "university" directly and in-depth? -- Adamant1 ( talk) 19:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep The article was nominated three times before and resulted keep. A clean up might works. Onmyway22 talk 19:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Would you please read this in its entirety before voting? Sabeelul hidaya ( talk) 03:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are 25,000+ madrasas in Kerala, this is one of the most prominent. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}

It's important to note that this is a Deobandi institution and Wikipedia has been beset with quite a degree of drama between supporters and those opposed to the movement. Instead of getting involved in the drama, all that should concern us is focussing on reliable sourcing, remembering that AfD is not clean up and expecting a thorough BEFORE. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 10:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Most of the references you cited are trivial name drops. There needs to be more then that for them to work for notability. Especially since this isn't a university in the way the notability guidelines for schools means it. But articles with simple name drops like the ones you've provided don't work for WP:GNG either. We aren't just verifying the exitance of the place. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 19:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

That is a misrepresentation, they're not simple name drops, they're sources which attest to (a) its prominence and (b) two of them discuss it in length; the sources establish notability under NONPROFIT. FWIW, I'm reminded of AfDs of other Deobandi institutions; precedent shows keep ( Jamia Tur Rasheed, Karachi, Jamia Darul Uloom, Karachi); while this one must be judged on its own merits, it's nevertheless useful to note the patterns. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 20:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Really? The last reference on your list literally just says the name of the school. To cite from the abstract of the paper that the quote in the last reference you listed, it says "his article explores how different forms of capital act in configuring power relations among differently positioned Mappila Muslim men." Which doesn't sound it has anything to do with this "university." So how exactly am I misrepresenting that reference by saying it's not about the "university" and just names drops it? Also, where do the notability guidelines say that something is notable if a reference "attests to its prominence" and what makes whoever is attesting to it's prominence an authority that is worth listening to, instead of following the notability guidelines? -- Adamant1 ( talk) 22:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Analysis of one source, is not analysis of six. You first stated that these "are trivial name drops"; but they are not, out of 25,000+ madrasas in the state of Kerala (population 34+ million), I've supplied reliable sourcing from peer-reviewed specialist publications that attests this is "one of the most prominent", "prestigious" institutions that was a pioneer of integrated Islamic education. Two of the sources are detailed examinations of the madrassa. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 05:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

There's a reason I said "most" of your references are purely name drops in my original message. "Most" isn't all six. In the meantime, I picked one as an example. Which is fine. I don't have to summarize every single reference in obtuse detail for my point to be valid. If 4 or 5 of the references you've provided are trivial name drops then it still massively undermines the reasons you posted them and the claims your making about them showing notability. As far as your claim that the sources say it is a "prestigious" institution, only the 6th reference uses the term "prestigious" and it has to do with prestigious Sunni groups that are associated with the institution, not the "university" itself. I could see where you might have misread that sentence though. It's kind of convoluted. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 11:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

You've misunderstood Kasim's point. It's an article about social capital and the way in which male-male networks reinforce and extend social power and assist in social mobility among Kerala's muslims. The full quote states: "Although all Kerala Muslims are Sunnis of the Shafi madhab, nowadays the term Sunni is used to mean "traditionalist" Muslims: those who stand opposed to the organized reformists, the Mujahids and the Jama’at-e-Islami. These groups also run religious institutions like mosques and madrasas, and maintain their competence involving in various community development activities such as promoting education. As part of this, they send students from the region, irrespective of their class backgrounds, to various Islamic educational institutions associated with these organizations. Darul-Huda Islamic University at Chemmad of the EK group of Sunnis, Markazu Saqafathi Sunniyya at Karanthur of the AP group of Sunnis, Al-Jamia Al-Islamiya at Shanthapuram of the Jama’at-e-Islami, and Madeenathul-Uloom at Pulikkal of the Mujahids are considered prestigious." He's making a point that each sect has an institution it considers prestigious and orients towards by sending students there, he is not describing the EK group, the AP group, Jama’at-e-Islami or the Mujahids as prestigious. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 08:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

In general notability means "worthy of attention or notice; remarkable." If the author is "making a point that each sect has an institution it considers prestigious" and your saying this is notable because the author says it's prestigious, then your essentially creating de-facto standard where each sects institutions are de-facto notable. Simply because it's an "Islamic university." Otherwise, what makes this one remarkable and worthy of notice compared to all the other ones out there that the author says are also "prestigious", which according to them is literally all of them? Or should we just have an article on every Islamic educational institution "just because?" Also, notice from that quote the author is saying "the sect considers the institution prestigious." Why should we care what the sects think of their own institutions when considering their notability? That would be the same as saying a business is notable because it's CEO says it is. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 17:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Your point that some of them are mentions is made and understood. What would be helpful for this particular discussion is whether at least some are in depth. Even if two of them are WP:SIRS, other non-significant ones can be combined per WP:BASIC. hemantha ( brief) 17:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

It's probably personal preference, but I'm not a fan myself of "combing non-significant ones per WP:BASIC" or whatever. Since it just invites ref bombing of bad sources. Plus, two or three in-depth references is a pretty low bar that most things should be able to meet anyway. In the meantime, I'm more then happy to re-consider the notability of this institution if two or three in-depth references materialize. I haven't seen them myself though and I spent a good amount of time reading through the references that Goldsztajn provided. Which ones do you feel are in-depth? -- Adamant1 ( talk) 17:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

"Also, notice from that quote the author is saying "the sect considers the institution prestigious." Why should we care what the sects think of their own institutions when considering their notability? That would be the same as saying a business is notable because it's CEO says it is." This is a false analogy. It is an independent area expert making the statement...and there are 25,000 madrasas to choose from, but this is the presitigious one. A more apposite analogy would be in mid 20th Century USA, upper middle class WASP families regarded sending their child to Andover Academy as prestigious (probably still do). Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 03:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The analogy is perfectly apt because he's saying that the institutions that think they are prestigious, not that he thinks they are. Even if he saying they were though, the dude has only written like six articles about Islam and gender. Most of which aren't even slightly related to Madras. So in no way is he an "independent area expert." Not even in gender. Which is the main area the guy writes about. You seem to be working really hard to squeeze water out of a turnip to justify keeping the article for some reason. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 12:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Goldsztajn and these - [4], some local news sources and books Hemantha ( talk) 09:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete We cannot ignore WP:SIGCOV when it comes to an educational institution. An entity does not get to ignore our sourcing requirements because it happens to be an educational institution. This type of situation is exactly why WP:NORG has been created. This organization hired a bunch of editors to spam their organization across Wikipedias in several different languages, regardless of notability requirements. And @ Goldsztajn:, this AfD is not an example of anti-Deobandi nationalism or whatever. This is a case of an organization gaming the system with shitty coverage and churnalism to get an article. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment What's nationalism got to do with anything related to this AfD? There's at least two sources with significant coverage in the six I provided which are from peer-reviewed academic publications. Please actually comment on the sources provided rather than making blanket assertions about all sources in toto. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 08:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I think nationalism thing has to do with this AfD because you claimed in your original "vote" that "Wikipedia has been beset with quite a degree of drama between Deobandi supporters and those opposed to the movement." Which makes it sound like your claiming the AfD, and by implication people who vote delete, are both partially being motivated by anti-Deobandi nationalist sentiment. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 17:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

There's clearly active currents both pro- and anti-Deobandi matters, but it has nothing to do with nationalism. Given the origins of this AfD, my comment was related to emphasising a focus on sourcing, rather than being sidetracked with speculation over other editors' intentions (perceived or otherwise). Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 03:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I've read through all the discussions related to this and your the only that's used the term "Deobandi." No one else has. Except for me when I asked you about it and responded to your original message that mentioned them. Your clearly pro-Deobandi. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's weird to claim other people are anti-Deobandi when no one else has brought them up. Otherwise, can you point out where anyone, including (or especially) me, has said anything anti-Deobandi in this discussion? -- Adamant1 ( talk) 12:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

A good faith request that you focus on questions of notability, rather than (mistakenly) asserting my editorial intent. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 20:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

If you want people to focus on questions of notability then your free to lead by example and do so yourself. In the meantime if your going to say that people voting in AfDs are anti-Deobandi don't be surprised when someone asks you for evidence. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 20:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep: (at least weak keep): nomination has sort of given reason for notability in the nom., but it needs the sources which it essentially has. There are twp sides to this, and I lose track of who's who. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 04:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Clearly COI issues, possibly article naming issues (outside my ability to follow). But the sum total of prior keep AFD conclusions, and the sources identified by Huon and Goldstejn, lead me to believe we could write a decent article about this institution and GNG is met. (Not all of those sources persuade me, there's many passing mentions. But there is enough there.) Martinp ( talk) 12:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment I'm more then willing to change my vote to keep in light of the new references and whatnot as long as the ref bombing of primary sources currently in the article and the edit waring/COI editors are all dealt with. As things currently are though I don't think there should be an article on this if COI editors are using it as a place to camp out and ref bomb with primary references. It doesn't seem that the Administrator Notice complaint has gone anywhere in the meantime either. Which doesn't speak to this turning into an actually useful, encyclopedic article anytime soon (if ever). Instead of just a mostly primary referenced, ref bombed add for the institution. So I say either the cleanup happens now or we delete the article per WP:TNT and fact that it's written as un-ambiguous advertising with almost zero chance that it won't be. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 18:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment@ Goldsztajn, Hemantha, and Martinp: All the above references further corroborate what I said earlier.

In the article given in the first reference, "Darul Huda Islamic Academy" is cited as an example of the tendency of some Islamic institutions in Kerala to name "College" or "Academy" instead of "Madrasa".

The introduction to the article given in the second reference clearly stated that it includes interviews with students of Darul Huda and Al Jamia and they added Darul Huda's old website, www.darulhuda.com, as the reference to the information given in the article.

In the biography of the author of the article given in the third reference, it is clearly stated that he is MUNEER ARAM KUZHIYAN (A. K. Muneer Hudawi) and that he holds a postgraduate degree in “Islamics and Contemporary Studies” from the Darul Huda Islamic University.

The article in the fourth reference cited a Malayalam book named "Keraleeya Muslim Charithraparisarathil" which is said to have been authored by Mahmood Hudawi Panangangara (M. H. Panangangara), an alumni of the Darul Huda, edited by Bahauddin Muhammad Nadwi (B. M. Nadvi) and published by Darul Huda Islamic University, in two places related to this subject.

I am learning about the 5th and 6th references. Sabeelul hidaya ( talk) 18:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

In an AfD, the current state of the article mostly does not matter. What's under discussion is whether the subject deserves an article or not. If you have issues with Academy/University, request a move. hemantha ( brief) 03:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Hemantha: Consensus on this issue just a few weeks ago was not to move, see: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_17#Darul_Huda_Islamic_University_and_DHIU, but am in heated agreement, the contents of an article are essentially irrelevant in determining notability. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 03:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Reaffirm my keepstriking duplicate !vote Spinning Spark 13:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC). I've been pinged above with the AFD proposer questioning the validity of the sources Huon, Goldstejn, and myself are trusting in our Keep rationale before the relist. I have only visited Kerala briefly many years ago so don't profess any great expertise of this topic or its context, and can't validate sources thoroughly. That being said, I base my "enough to keep" conclusion on The Hindu source (Huon) and Goldstejn's sources 2 and 3. Some of the criticism above of those sources says they are tainted since they are themselves by authors who (it is claimed) are too closely related with the institution, or themselves rely on primary sources. While this may well be true, we can but assume that the editorial board of The Hindu, of the Mideast Association of America, and of Cambridge University Press added an acceptable amount of independent review. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that is relying on secondary sources, which in turn doubtless rely on primary sources, as is always the case. Hypothetical case example: suppose a banal social influencer's media promoters conspired to get them a presence on Wikipedia. We would challenge the COI and "deny" the article. However, if those same promoters effectively influence enough secondary sources with some independence to discuss the same influencer, it is not our job to look several layers down to gauge perstistence of COI, merely to note that notability has been achieved (however it happened) and keep an eventual article relying on them. I don't know enough about this institution, Kerala, etc. to know if this is the situation here, but that is the reason I am saying Keep after investigating (briefly) those 3 sources, irrespective of how they in turn came to be. BTW, I have discounted Goldstejn's source 1 and Huon's The Express article as passing mentions, and haven't looked at later sources on Goldstejn's list. Martinp ( talk) 21:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep: How much of this is substantial and how much is WP:IDONTLIKEIT is unclear (and yes, I read the very long noticeboard entry) is really unclear, there is a lot of agenda-driven advocacy on both sides (the article writer and the person proposing this AfD), cleanup is undoubtedly required, and lest I be accused otherwise I am not pro- or anti- anything involved. But, as always, the burden of proof is on the nominator to show that Huon and Goldsztajn's otherwise reliable sources, both journalism and scholarly, have suddenly lapsed in their reliability because there exists a group that wants to be promoted. And it must be proof, not "well, I think that's probably happening, and I don't like it." I don't see that proof here. Gnomingstuff ( talk) 21:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep This article was previously nominated for deletion 3 times and still resulted in 'Keep'. It can probably use a minor cleanup. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 22:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Why should it be kept? Sabeelul hidaya ( talk) 01:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep, but clean up the article and investigate potential COI conflicts thoroughly. — AFreshStart ( talk) 17:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Why should it be kept? Sabeelul hidaya ( talk) 01:48, 19 January 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, with valid points brought up on both sides of the divide. This has been reopened once, and has been open just shy of a month. I do not see a clear consensus emerging with another week of discussion. Star Mississippi 23:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Glenn Spears

Glenn Spears (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG, no evidence of significant coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 04:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 04:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unremarkable career with the usual "I was there" awards and decorations (the bronze star without V device is pretty mundane, especially in the Air Force). I don't happen to buy the "generals are automatically notable" argument, especially in an officer-heavy branch. Intothat darkness 15:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I agree: no automatic notability, nothing that suggests he passes the GNG. Drmies ( talk) 15:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete nothing to suggest this person is notable. It seems a good thing that we scapped the old military notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Agreed that the article provides no evidence of notability for encyclopedic standards. Polyglot Researcher ( talk) 09:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:BASIC, just being a General isn't a pass on notability. Mztourist ( talk) 13:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. A lieutenant general and commander of the Twelfth Air Force and he's not notable? Utter madness, as usual. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Makes you wonder, doesn't it. Drmies ( talk) 16:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

    How is it utter madness? He doesn't have the coverage to meet WP:GNG and there is no applicable WP:SNG. Mztourist ( talk) 08:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC) reply

    Clearly does meet GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep. What Necrothesp ( talk · contribs · count) said. Notable as lieutenant general and commander of the Twelfth Air Force. Deleting someone that notable hurts the encyclopedia. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Please identify the policy or SNG that makes him notable. He doesn't meet WP:BASIC therefore he is not notable. Mztourist ( talk) 08:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Necrothesp. Former commander of a numbered air force, which carries significant responsibility. At the time, the 12th Air force had about 6 wings and several reserve units, with about 630 aircraft and more than 42,000 personnel. Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 01:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  Please read WP:GNG it states: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If he doesn't have the coverage and there's no WP:SNG (which there isn't) then he's not notable, notwithstanding his commands. Mztourist ( talk) 08:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  WP:NEXIST applies. As a former commander of a numbered Air Force with the intrinsic responsibility of that high level position, which contains broad command and control with that many forces and subordinate commands, the possibility of existing sources to support notability is strong. This is a general that commands other generals, which gets to his level of responsibility. A search on Newspapers.com of "Glenn Spear" and "Air Force" between 1980-2021 gets 191 matches. Semper fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 12:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  Most of the sources added are not independent and so don't count towards notability. Just saying there are 191 matches doesn't show that he has significant coverage, if you want to keep this page you'll have to add RS. Mztourist ( talk) 08:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep It looks like a lot of sources and content have been added recently. While I don't think there is the best third-party coverage for LtGen Spears and many of the sources are Air Force publications, I think commanding a Numbered Air Force makes the subject is sufficiently notable to merit a page. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 07:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  Commanders in these positions are rotated roughly every two years. If his notability stems from commanding the numbered Air Force, he's perhaps best dealt with in a list of commanders (which exists in the article and where he's included). As far what's in the article...I thought LinkedIn existed for this kind of information. Generals in the military aren't especially unique these days, especially in the Air Force given its structure and culture. Intothat darkness 16:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  While its true that this article doesn't have much information not contained in an official Air Force bio or short article about LtGen Spears, the commander of a numbered Air Force is overseeing tens of thousands of people and billions of dollars of infrastructure and machinery. While I don't disagree with the statement that generals aren't inherently notable for the sake of being generals, I would argue that a NAF commander has sufficient notability to merit an article; the lack of extraordinary coverage about them (more often than not negative attention) does not diminish their notability. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 08:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment Source assessment table 1 follows:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.airforcemedicine.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000255749/	USAF website		Photo and caption only	✘ No
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/104732/lieutenant-general-glenn-f-spears/	USAF bio			✘ No
https://www.dm.af.mil/Media/News/Article/314616/air-force-announces-lieutenant-general-spears-retirement/	USAF website press release			✘ No
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/10217633/fss-introduced-to-cafb-air-force-columbus-air-force-base	USAF base newspaper			✘ No
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1019409.pdf	USAF publication		7-9 sentences setting out experience and commands	✘ No
https://books.google.ae/books?id=zWQMEuM_CfkC&pg=PA173&dq=%22&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false	? US Congress publication		? Short description of him and his career	? Unknown
Air Force Magazine	USAF magazine		? not available online	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/702849654/			? Can't read as my access not approved yet	? Unknown
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/546734367/			? Can't read as my access not approved yet	? Unknown
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/350042142/	USAF base newspaper			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Source assessment table 2 follows:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Weighted Airman Promotion System: Standardizing Test Scores	RAND study for USAF		Passing mention only	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/image/350305276/	USAF base newspaper			✘ No
Advancing the U.S. Air Force's Force Development Initiative	RAND study for USAF		Passing mention only	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/image/657394693/			? Can't read as my access not approved yet, assume its just a passing mention	? Unknown
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/213712864/			? Can't read as my access not approved yet	? Unknown
https://www.newspapers.com/image/693219732/			? Can't read as my access not approved yet	? Unknown
https://www.12af.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/319689/12th-air-force-commander-retires-after-33-years-of-service/	USAF website press release			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

• Question who made this table an how was it made? Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 09:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  I did, I have added my signature. Mztourist ( talk) 11:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  OK, thanks, looks like a lot of effort went into it. Please provide some details on the methodology used to make the entries on this table. Did you make all these evaluations, and what criteria did you use? Semper fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 12:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  The methodology is me looking at the source to see if its independent, which many aren't, deciding if they're reliable, which almost all are and then taking a view on whether or not coverage is significant, which is generally yes for the USAF sources and no or unable to be determined for the non-USAF sources. Mztourist ( talk) 07:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment It is possible to view the articles in some cases as OCR text without an account. The first newspaper source in the table is a namecheck reporting a change of command. The second is also a namecheck, saying he accompanied President Bush in his capacity as commander of the 89th Airlift Wing. The article also identifies his wife as Gwenn, as she seems to have been present as well. The Hill AFB article contains a two sentence quote from Spears in his capacity as director of force management policy and deals with Force Shaping Boards (in other words, personnel cuts). I'm not sure I'd call a single quote significant coverage. The article doesn't credit him with shaping the policy or doing anything over than overseeing elements of its execution in 2005. Intothat darkness 16:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

    I will take a closer look later, but I did add another source to flesh out the command at 89th Airlift Wing. Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 19:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After initially closing the discussion, I was asked by one of the participants on my User talk page to allow more time, which I have agreed to do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 04:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Pinging previous participants to make them aware that the discussion was re-opened: User:Dlthewave, User:Intothatdarkness, User:Drmies, User:Johnpacklambert, User:Polyglot Researcher, User:Mztourist, User:Necrothesp, User:Eastmain, User:Balon Greyjoy, User:FieldMarine. If I accidentally missed anyone, feel free to ping them separately. -- RL0919 ( talk) 04:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep as currently written, per WP:HEY. BD2412 T 06:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment despite the recent refbombing, I still don't see that BASIC is satisfied. I don't have time to go through the entire source assessment table exercise again particularly as one User will keep adding more refs. Mztourist ( talk) 06:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment @ FieldMarine: you have added a large amount of references, but it's still not clear to me whether they are enough to establish WP:SIGCOV. Based on the publishers, many appear to be non-independent (i.e. published by USAF or another employer of his) or likely passing mentions (i.e. the headline is not about the article subject). To make it easier for the rest of us to assess this, would you kindly state what you believe to be the WP:THREE best sources that most establish that he is notable? These sources should be both independent (i.e. not USAF/US military, his employer, etc.) and discuss him in as much detail as possible. If the sources you highlight are not freely accessible, please also describe them briefly: what is being said, in how much detail, how long is the section wherein the article subject is discussed, etc. - Ljleppan ( talk) 07:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi, can you access 5, 9, 13, 14 and 26, or at least get the gist of them? Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 14:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Also, for ref 27, you can see it was used here as a ref, as well as some of the actions taken by Spears during the Earthquake. Semper fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 14:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ FieldMarine: I'm still waiting for access to newspaperarchive.com from the WP:Library, could you please give a quick summary of the coverage in #5, #13 and #26? Based on the Google books previews, #9 seems like very passing mentions while ref #14 looks very short and doesn't really have any meat on the bones. - Ljleppan ( talk) 16:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

There are 10 mentions of Spears in the Air Force One book, two in the beginning as acknowledgements, and the rest about him, his responsibilities before and while at the 89th, about the wing he commands, about the Air Force One airplane itself, and about increase security in the aftermath of 911. In sum, the coverage is not a trivial mention as he is being specifically discussed. Also, can you access the web version on ref 26, the link is included in the ref. Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 18:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I did not see the second link for #26. That seems like an extremely run-of-the-mill article with a literal 2-sentence "bio" of Spears. Can you provide the summary of the two other refs I couldn't access? - Ljleppan ( talk) 18:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

It is short, but not a trivial mention, and important because the aricle also includes details about the magnitude of his command. Ref 5 is short, about 3 sentences, and incudes details about his command at Andrews not included anywhere else. Ref 13 is several sentences about his command at the 89th, and his responsibilities as Wing Commander. Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 19:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the summary. - Ljleppan ( talk) 19:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment I'm seeing a lot of name checks and non-independent sources being added, but not much in the way of content that actually demonstrates notability independent of his last command position (which in my view is inherited notability in any case...major commands turn over about every two years). I looked at some of these, and to give one example the Silver Wings piece is from a base newspaper and is essentially a restatement of his official biography with no new information added. Intothat darkness 13:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep I think the sourcing at present is just barely enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete While a large amount of references have been added recently into the article, the bulk of them of them are non-independent. Based on the answers of FieldMarine above to a WP:THREE query, even the best independent sources appear to be very passing mentions of few sentences each in rather routine news coverage. As far as I can tell, Spears' main claim of notability is that he commanded the unit in charge of Air Force One at the time of 9/11. Yet, the potentially most convincing reference, a post-9/11 book about AF1, only mentions him by name a handful of time, with the bulk of the mentions boiling down to a few sentences on a single page. In my view, the references fail to establish that the subject has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emph. added) and as such the subject fails WP:GNG. While some other editors have indicated that his rank or position would make him inherently notable, I do not believe there exists any policy or guideline to that effect. As for why this is a weak delete, I'm not able to access all the references used in the article and am relying on FieldMarine's WP:THREE above. - Ljleppan ( talk) 19:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: the 5 sources above are not "trivial mentions", and each contains important details that address the topic so that no original research is required. I agree that command of 89th Wing and Andrews Air Force Base in the aftermath of 911, with increased public and governmental interest in security at that time, especially for government VIPs, adds to his notability. Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 20:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Please note my comment above is not claiming those add to his notability, but rather that they are the primary claim of notability. The distinction is important, especially when significant coverage of those primary claims in independent reliable sources is so light. In my view, this is a strike against the notability, not for it. Furthermore, the standard is not "more than trivial mentions", but rather significant coverage which several sentences is very far from. - Ljleppan ( talk) 20:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is a well written and well referenced article about a significant person. If the notability guidelines indicate the individual should not have an article then this is one of the occasional exceptions when the criteria are providing unsatisfactory guidance. Thincat ( talk) 14:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep While some sources are not independent, there are an ample amount of articles that are, passes WP:GNG. Jamesallain85 ( talk) 19:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment, more content with refs added. I believe his notability stems from both his command of the 89th in the aftermath of 9/11 as well as 12th Air force. I'm confident with more research and addition of content, his role as SOUTHCOM Deputy would also contribute to his notability considering the responsibilities involved with that position and the scope of that combatant command. Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 03:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • While you added a few more references, a quick spot check of these does not fill me with confidence: "Air Force One: A History of Presidential Air Travel" is a single-sentence mention; Patch.com is not reliable and the story is an advertisement for an event; the WaPo story, again, has literally a single sentence about Spears; "CHIPS" is a navy-sponsored publication; "New Horizons Panama 2010 comes to a close" is an Air Force press release; "Air Power in UN Operations" has first a two-sentence mention followed by a later one-sentence mention. Rather than having us look over all the references you added, please provide an updated WP:THREE (this time, please limit it to three rather than more sources) if you believe the sources you added are better than those you listed in your previous list of best sources. Before doing so, I suggest you revise e.g. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. - Ljleppan ( talk) 08:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment, all the sources provide details used for the article that go beyond "a trivial mention" per the general notability guideline. In sum, they "provide enough information for a reasonably detailed article on the subject." Many have pointed out the military related sources are not independent, so cannot be used for GNG, despite the overall size of the military (it seems unlikely, for example, that a Department of the Navy publication is not independent about a member of the Air Force (the Navy is not the employer nor the evaluator of the person)). Setting those aside, here's a summary of a few of the non-military sources:

Ref 9: I'm not sure what you can see from Google, but in the book on Air Force One, it mentions Spears by name a total of 11 times, with 1 as an acknowledgement in the beginning and one at the end in the Index. Of those, it first discusses Spears himself, and the size of 89th. Then it goes into the response of the command after 9/11, calling the traveling after that event as "unprecedented", with fighter escorts used for the first time while Air Force One carried Bush, and intel reports stating terrorist wanted to ram the plane while in flight, TTPs used to protect the President and the plane, and the new security measures are the tightest ever, stuff like that.

Ref 13: Contains 20 sentences and over 540 words about Spears with a focus on his command at the 89th and Andrews Air force Base.

Ref 30: Between pages 217-220, this ref highlights the actions of Spears did to add resources to free up bottle necks in the response to the earthquake in Haiti, particularly at the command and organizational level, and to hammer out the authorities. He is mentioned by name, as "he" and as AFSOUTH. This was one of the major events for AFSOUTH while he was commander.

Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 01:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment Still a weak delete from me. Of the WP:THREE above, ref 9 is very passing mentions (9/11, AF1 and the 89th are all notable, but notability is not inherited). For ref 30, references to Spears specifically are extremely passing and we cannot simply insert "Spears" for every instance of "AFSOUTH". And again, the fact that AFSOUTH is notable does not mean its commander is. I cannot access the full text of ref 13, but even if it's fine, a single good reference does not significant coverage make. I'd also be philosophically fine with a merger of the article to e.g. 89th Airlift Wing and Twelfth Air Force but I'm not seeing much that would be worth merging. - Ljleppan ( talk) 09:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Have you reviewed ref 9, or are you going by the limited parts you can view in Google? In my opinion, viewing the copy in Google misses the context. In sum, ref 9, 13, 14 state that Spears kept the President and national leaders safe in the aftermath of 9/11, and provide details about that, essentially, he was thrown into an unprecedented situation as the commander of the unit with AF1 and Andrews during a critical time. These are not trivial mentions and nor is it inherited notability. They are specific to him. What are trivial mentions is that while commander of Andrews during this time, he was receiving the first casualties of the war overseas, such as Capt Spann, which was basically a one-line mention (but carried in numerous newspapers globally), and certainly an important aspect of his command. For ref 30, my point is that often in the U.S. military, commanders are called by the unit they command, so determining mentions is more than just how many times you count up the name "Spears" in determining coverage. This source provides specific actions he took as the commander during one significant event that occurred during his tenure with 12th AF. I agree that this alone would not make him notable, but the sum total of his actions through several significant commands does, and the sources, some GNG and some not, support that position. Semper fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 21:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment, also Ref 14 is 13 sentences and over 300 words long, and says, Spears "played a vital part in keeping the president safe", and includes details about that. Semper fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 03:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment for closing admin, please consider WP:NOTBURO when closing based on some of the comments above. There were comments about the use of military sources for purposes of determining GNG. Many say sources from the military cannot be used as a GNG source for a member of the military and perhaps this has become viewed as conventional wisdom. Personally, I believe there is enough separation in some cases between the source and the subject to qualify the military source as independent of the subject. For example, a Department of the Navy source covering a person in the Air Force. In this case, the DoN is not the "employer" as specified in WP:INDY as non-independent source. Semper fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 04:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep. We have hundreds of similar articles, partly because of he ease of making them from PD-US sources. There is no special reason to delete this one. If we mean to change our practice we should discuss that, not try to establish precedent form a single article. DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • We have hundreds of similar articles because of the old military notability guidelines that were disbanded. So the comparison to other articles is flawed and ignores the fact that Wikipedia proactively changed its policies, but it takes a long time to implement new policies against a collection of hundreds of articles. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • We have hundreds of similar articles because many editors believe that it is common sense that people in these positions are notable and have therefore created them. If you look at recent AfDs you will see that only a handful of editors continually claim that they are not notable. Unfortunately, AfDs are generally not at all well attended and this handful of editors often manages to successfully push their views. That certainly does not mean that they are suddenly right and are doing the best thing for Wikipedia and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong and is not. That is a complete fallacy. As is the claim that Wikipedia has in any way changed its policies. It has not. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • One could say the same of the handful of steady keep voters. Intothat darkness 14:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
        • As I said, this is the problem with relying on AfDs that almost nobody attends. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Wikipedia used to have a military notability guideline that said that people who held the military position this man held were default notable. We have scrapped that policy. So yes, we have changed our policy, and a large number of articles we have are legacy articles that pre-date that policy change. For the record my vote above was a weak keep, so I am actually persuaded we should keep this article. However editors need to stop villifying those who have other views on a matter. It is clearly not encouraging participation in Wikipedia for editors to violate the assume good faith guidelines, as the above comments do. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
        • You seem to be confusing policies with notability guidelines. No policy has been changed. Editors do indeed need to stop vilifying others with different views. As I'm sure you know (since you have taken part in many of the same AfDs), I have been attacked numerous times recently, usually by the same handful of editors, for asserting my views on notability. It's time editors accepted that a view posted on AfD is a valid view and should not be attacked, insulted, mocked, sneered at or used to attack the poster's integrity or good faith. This is not how Wikipedia should work and not how editors should behave. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep we have several reliable sources providing significant coverage per the source analysis tables above. I think this article is one occation where we should allow a pass even if the sources aren't independent as there clearly is no shortage of information here and Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. NemesisAT ( talk) 21:59, 20 January 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Milen Mitev

Milen Mitev (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Played 2 football matches over 10 years ago at the professional level but has spent his subsequent career at amateur/semi-pro level. This cited source fails to show any significant coverage of Mitev. Likewise Google searches and a Bulgarian source search yield only coverage of a lawyer of the exact same name. In fact, the only coverage I can find of this particular Mitev is a trivial mention in Plovdiv24, which is far from WP:GNG. GNG is absolutely required when the WP:NFOOTBALL pass is so trivial. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. ArsenalGhanaPartey ( talk) 20:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:GNG, a clear WP:BEFORE has been done to show this. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I concur with the nomination. I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV for the subject. As such, in light of WP:WINNEROUTCOMES, the consensus has been deletion. GauchoDude ( talk) 13:04, 19 January 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Janet Shearon

Janet Shearon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

First wife of astronaut Neil Armstrong. WP:INVALIDBIO: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clearly not notable. Article makes no mention of any achievements other than marrying someone famous. Ficaia ( talk) 20:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not notable per WP:INVALIDBIO, article fails WP:GNG. No point in keeping this around. Tosi | they/them | ^t/ _c 20:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG MaskedSinger ( talk) 06:24, 16 January 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 23:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

List of high schools in Caaguazú, Paraguay

List of high schools in Caaguazú, Paraguay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a follow up to the AfD Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Alto Paraná, Paraguay, which resulted in delete. The same reasons apply here for why that list wasn't notable. Mainly, there's zero evidence that the schools are notable as a group or set. Let alone individually. Since none of them are blue linked, only a few are referenced to primary sources, and I couldn't find any secondary, usable sources when I looked that would help things. So, this list is clearly WP:LISTCRUFT, fails the notability criteria for lists, and therefore should be deleted. Adamant1 ( talk) 19:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:LISTN. LibStar ( talk) 23:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above.-- Ts12rAc ^{talk to me} 16:54, 19 January 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Sotiris Fiakas

Sotiris Fiakas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Despite playing the last 15 mins of a single football match five years ago, there is no evidence of notability for Fiakas. None of the hits in a Greek language Google News search nor a Greek language DDG search show significant coverage. Per clear consensus on similar articles on footballers that fail WP:GNG, the article should be deleted. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete per GS. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 08:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Subject appears to lack WP:SIGCOV and per consensus at WP:WINNEROUTCOMES the subject lacks criteria for a stand alone article. GauchoDude ( talk) 16:45, 18 January 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 23:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

List of high schools in Amambay, Paraguay

List of high schools in Amambay, Paraguay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a follow up to the AfD Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Alto Paraná, Paraguay, which resulted in delete. The same reasons apply here for why that list wasn't notable. Mainly, there's zero evidence that the schools are notable as a group or set. Let alone individually. Since none of them are blue linked and I couldn't find any secondary, notable references in a WP:BEFORE. So, this list is clearly WP:LISTCRUFT, fails the notability criteria for lists, and therefore should be deleted. Adamant1 ( talk) 19:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:LISTN. LibStar ( talk) 23:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:LISTN.-- Ts12rAc ^{talk to me} 16:55, 19 January 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 23:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

List of high schools in Alto Paraguay

List of high schools in Alto Paraguay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a follow up to the AfD Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Alto Paraná, Paraguay, which resulted in delete. The same reasons apply here for why that list wasn't notable. Mainly, there's zero evidence that the schools are notable as a group or set. Let alone individually. Since none of them are blue linked and I couldn't find any secondary, notable references in a WP:BEFORE. So, this list is clearly WP:LISTCRUFT, fails the notability criteria for lists, and should be deleted. Adamant1 ( talk) 19:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence that these schools are discussed significantly as a group and also as per consensus at this AfD Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:LISTN. LibStar ( talk) 23:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Deleteper nom. Jettew10222 ( talk) 15:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:LISTN.-- Ts12rAc ^{talk to me} 16:56, 19 January 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. Page deleted by Deb under CSD:G11 and G12 ( non-admin closure) Bingobro (Chat) 15:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Emtrain

Emtrain (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Moved to draft space and then declined through AfC. Draft placed back to mainspace by COI editor which is what caught my attention. A WP:BEFORE search was conducted and failed to find anything meeting WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 ( talk) 19:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Article was moved to mainspace after the edits/citations requested were added. Seeing the optin to move the article is what led me to believe that the article could be moved. For reference, I found this online that does collaborate my experience: ^{[1] [2]} I would like however to get this article reviewed and approved for main space rather than be deleted. I've been following the established processes and have complied with the requests, both past and present, in order to get this in good graces with Wikipedia. What do I need to do?

Aamat-webeditor ( talk) 22:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete nothing but vanity spam about a generic company with no significance or meaningful coverage. SANTADICAE🎅 17:51, 13 January 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. Geschichte ( talk) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

List of conflicts by duration

List of conflicts by duration (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article clearly violates Verifiability. If this article remains in this state, it deserves to be deleted. It is in need of verifying, there are no specific criteria to add a conflict to the list, it does not define which conflict to be added, there are also conflicts that are categorized by month they were started and others only by year. Sakiv ( talk) 18:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sakiv ( talk) 18:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sakiv ( talk) 18:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Green C 20:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep this is obviously a significant topic, and it sounds more like the user wants to use deletion as cleanup. Dronebogus ( talk) 19:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

And why do I do that? The article in its current shape needs a great effort to befit Wikipedia, and any conflict, even if it is between two villages and for several minutes, can be added to it. We need to agree on clear criteria for listing conflicts in this article.-- Sakiv ( talk) 00:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

If it has its own article, then its on the list. Dream Focus 01:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep - It is trivial to demonstrate that conflicts have been listed in terms of length in reliable, independent sources and this is thus a WP:LISTN pass, see 1 2 3 4. I believe the Guinness Book of Records has a category for this as well. FOARP ( talk) 19:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep Needs more sources and refined criteria are valid concerns for the article. I don't think they are valid reasons to delete the topic, the purpose of AfD. -- Green C 20:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- However this is a stupid article. In the case of the Scilly isles and Netherlands, the declaration of war may not have eben formally cancelled, but war ceased with the peace t5reated at the end of First Anglo-Dutch War in the 1650s, not in 1984. Many of the other conflicts were actually a series of wars, not one. There is thus an element of original research in this, but this is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep No valid reason given for deletion. If you don't like an article's condition, discuss it on the talk page. And if the information is listed in the article linked to, no need to duplicate references over here. Dream Focus 01:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Agree on keeping but strongly, strongly disagree that it is appropriate to create a list for which Wikipedia is the source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The items in the list have had their durations calculated in many cases by WP:OR or by WP:FRINGE sources and this is a big problem. FOARP ( talk) 10:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete completely ridiculous list because conflicts often don't end in peace treaties, meaning they technically continue. For example, as the BBC constantly reminds us, the Korean War ended with a ceasefire so technically it is still ongoing after 71+ years. Similarly there was no peace treaty between Israel and Syria so technically the Six-Day War has been going on for 55+ years which doesn't quite have the same ring to it. Mztourist ( talk) 03:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Resolved with list criteria and/or talk page discussions. Make two columns, one for legal end and the other for cessation of military hostilities. A notes column clarifying issues. etc.. Reality is messy but Wikipedia can handle it. -- Green C 05:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  WP:LISTCRUFT suitable for Guinness Book of Records or Ripleys Believe it or not, not WP. Mztourist ( talk) 08:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Mztourist - Conflict duration is an area of academic study, and there are reliable sources where the duration of conflicts is compared (e.g., Appendix A-1 in Bennett, D. S., & Stam, A. C. (1996). The Duration of Interstate Wars, 1816-1985. The American Political Science Review, 90(2), 239–257. [5] ). Where I will agree with you is that the present state of the article is quite bad, filled with original research, and compares apples with oranges because the conflict-durations are not calculated according to a meaningful methodology - but this can be fixed with ordinary editing and is not a DELREASON. FOARP ( talk) 10:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Obviously I disagree. The reference you give is for a theory of conflict duration, which is a rather different topic. Mztourist ( talk) 10:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

It also includes a dataset of conflicts listed by duration, which makes this a WP:LISTN pass, and discusses in depth the factors they believe affect conflict duration. All the same the list does need work, otherwise we'll be back here. FOARP ( talk) 11:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment - @ Sakiv, GreenC, Peterkingiron, Mztourist, Dream Focus, and Dronebogus:, I've raised a discussion on this that can be seen here. The TL;DR is there are reliably-sourced ways of calculating and comparing conflict-length, that exclude all of the silly listings on this page. FOARP ( talk) 12:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep for reasons cited by User:Sakiv, User:Dronebogus, User:FOARP User:GreenC, and User:Dream Focus. They've said it all. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep, joining the party, I brought the chips. Randy Kryn ( talk) 19:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep Though a listcruft at the moment, it can still become a good list if proper sources are added. Mukt ( talk) 07:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Withdrawn by nominator, the result seems clear and there is no need to continue the discussion about deletion. The article needs to be cleaned up and can be discussed on its talk page.-- Sakiv ( talk) 14:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Sakiv Why you struck a couple of !votes above? Dear Debasish ( talk) 14:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  I just undid that. You can't go striking out other people's votes. You should be able to post somewhere asking for someone to close this discussion. Dream Focus 21:34, 17 January 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Loizos Papasavva

Loizos Papasavva (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

With only 106 mins of professional football, Papasavva has, at best, a weak presumption of notability here. I am aware that he played two cup games but these were while playing for a club in the 2014–15 Cypriot Second Division, so don't count towards notability. Zero coverage found in Google News and only Wikipedia mirrors found in a Greek language search. The massive WP:GNG failure means that I recommend deletion here as clearly this sportsperson isn't notable enough to warrant an article in a global encyclopaedia. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete per GS. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 08:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Subject appears to lack WP:SIGCOV and as such doesn't warrant a standalone article. GauchoDude ( talk) 15:41, 13 January 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. Clear consensus that there is something worth keeping. Consensus favors a rename and change of focus, but without a clear target. Further discussion on the best way forward can take place on the article talk page. Mojo Hand ( talk) 00:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Heechee

Heechee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar, neither for the fictional race, nor for the "Heechee series". I did find one source that offers a bit of hope that the latter may be notable, [6], although I find that text hard to parse, bordering on unreadable (seems to suffer from a heavy case of postmodernist syndrome...). Maybe someone else can find something to try to ressue this, but the odds are WP:TNT or at least major gutting/rewriting are in order (the article is unfortunately focused on the almost certainly-not-notable fictional alien race, instead of on the maybe-notable book series). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Rename Gateway series, Heechee Saga or Heechee series. This is definitely a notable series/fictional universe. The article just needs a change of focus. See, for example, the Washington Post article "Gateway to a Wonder", Publishers Weekly ( "Since it began with the novel Gateway (1977), Pohl's Heechee series has been among the most consistently daring of SF's continuing enterprises") and a fair bit in Pohl's entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Rename & Cleanup - The series appears to be notable, per Clarityfiend, and the first couple sections of the article are definitely salvageable to keep as the basis of an article on an overview of it. If its renamed as suggested and all of the unsourced plot cruft that makes up the second half is removed, we're left with a workable stub article on the series. Rorshacma ( talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above sourcing and as a classic Sci-Fi series that has inspired others: [7]. Rename, consolidation, and cleanup are all welcome. Gateway Saga would be another possible rename. Jclemens ( talk) 06:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep not seeing an applicable deletion rationale here outside of just liking deleting things. Artw ( talk) 16:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep Like Artw Pawel Niemczuk ( talk) 21:23, 19 January 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Xanth

Xanth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar for the fictional world of Xanth, what little I see is plot summary. Perhaps the book series, referred occasionally as the "Xanth series", could be notable, although the article doesn't include any sources discussing it as a whole, nor did I see anything scholarly on it. I'll note we have Piers_Anthony_bibliography#Xanth_series and close to 30 very unimpressive entries for the books in the series - only the first, A Spell for Chameleon , seems to have a "reception and significance" section, all the others, like Well-Tempered Clavicle, are just plot summaries and should likely be PRODed due to failing WP:NBOOK (which further suggests the series itself is not notable, although I did see some in passing references to the series being "best-selling", ex. [8]). Anyway, back to topic at hand - as a "fictional world", this fails GNG hard, and as a "book series", it do so as well. A redirect to th Piers_Anthony_bibliography#Xanth_series seems best, although if someone would like to save it, cutting down the "world of" fancruft and replacing it with sources discussing the entire series (not individual books) could work, if such sources exist (again, I found to locate anything that meets WP:SIGCOV). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There is sufficient third-party RSS coverage for GNG ( [9], [10], [11]). The reason there isn't very much is that Xanth's peak of popularity was in the 80s, but notability is not temporary. "Best-selling Xanth series" refers to the New York Times paperback best seller list ( [12]) with 29 appearances between 1983 and 1990. Dan Bloch ( talk) 19:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Strongest possible keep: "Fictional world" is a weird phrasing, as this article is about the series and not the in-universe world. That said, the series is enormously, unquestionably notable. This is a small, 15-minute-search sampling of what's out there about the series as a whole:

  AV Club: https://www.avclub.com/revisiting-the-sad-misogynistic-fantasy-of-xanth-1798241312

  Slate: https://slate.com/culture/2013/08/piers-anthonys-spell-for-chameleon-the-mass-market-paperback-that-was-my-first-grown-up-novel.html

  Tor citing Variety; it doesn't look like the film/TV adaptations have come to fruition but the fact that they were optioned at all indicates the series' notability: https://www.tor.com/2017/04/12/piers-anthonys-xanth-novels-to-become-feature-film-and-tv-series/

  Searching on Google Books for sources is kind of arduous because there are just so many of these books to filter out, and most of the significant coverage is old enough to be behind a paywall. But some things I found:

  This 1983 book seems to have quite a lot (paywalled, but the book is solely about Piers Anthony and the span of page numbers here suggests it is more than passing coverage): https://www.google.com/books/edition/Piers_Anthony/3dQJrNDap_0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=xanth

  A periodical from 1984 that seems likely to be WP:SIGCOV, but I can't confirm due to the paywall: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Fantasy_Review/vcMbAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22xanth%22+%22piers+anthony%22+%22fantasy%22+%22series+is%22&dq=%22xanth%22+%22piers+anthony%22+%22fantasy%22+%22series+is%22&printsec=frontcover

  Tertiary source: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sequels/tBUlCAwAtNwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22xanth%22+%22piers+anthony%22+%22according+to+the%22&pg=PA26&printsec=frontcover

  Another tertiary source -- there are a lot more, so I'm going to stop at two: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Fantasy_and_Horror_Ficti/jUv5gVgSNvYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22xanth%22+%22piers+anthony%22+%22fantasy%22+%22series+is%22&pg=PA8&printsec=frontcover

  Google Scholar also unsurprisingly has some papers; this one seems substantial: https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol40/iss1/6/

  Another Google Scholar example, but further behind a paywall: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0034408910860104?journalCode=urea20

  This article isn't directly about Xanth but mentions a book (Bellbottoms, Disco, and Death Stars) and implies it does have substantial content: https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA452880064&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00145483&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=nysl_oweb&isGeoAuthType=true

  And finally a bunch of stuff on JSTOR that I don't have time to go through, but I think at this point I've demonstrated notability: https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=xanth+piers+anthony&so=rel

• In sum, at the risk of assuming bad faith, the sheer volume and breadth of the secondary source coverage of this series makes me wonder how exactly a WP:BEFORE search was done. Gnomingstuff ( talk) 20:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  You are citing reviews for books in the series and encyclopedic entries for Piers, Anthony, which do mention the series in passing. Cobbling things together is somewhat WP:SYNTHy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Reviews count toward notability per WP:NBOOK -- I am of the opinion here that most individual books other than maybe the first are better merged into an article on the series. The act of incorporating information from multiple sources is not original research ( WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH). It is the very process of constructing an encyclopedia article. Gnomingstuff ( talk) 18:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Not a big fan of the series myself, but it goes on and on, seemingly forever; 45 novels(!) is just too much to ignore. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The Xanth series itself is certainly notable, as demonstrated by the sources already mentioned in this AFD. Aside from adding those sources into the article, all this really needs is a bit of cleanup to make it clear that the article is on the notable book series, and not on the fictional world itself. Rorshacma ( talk) 23:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep It's reasonable to discuss what should be focused upon by this article, but that it's a notable fictional franchise is indisputable. Not up to your usual BEFORE standards, Piotrus. Jclemens ( talk) 06:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ Jclemens I did say that the series may be notable, but the article needs a WP:TNT. Have you looked at it? Outside a list of the books it is pure plot summary, it has zero on reception, significance, best-selling status, etc. For the record, I might be tempted to create a viable entry for the series post TNT, but I am unwilling to work using the current fancruft pile as a foundation. I stand by my view that keeping this entry in the current form is a disservice to the readers, we are providing next to zero encyclopedic information, and all the fancruft is covered better at https://xanth.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • AfD is not cleanup. If you don't want to take the couple of seconds to delete a few paragraphs, then that's entirely on you. Gnomingstuff ( talk) 18:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

    Forgive me if I repeat myself, but... if we delete a few paragraphs, the OR about the fictional universe, what are we left with? The lead about the same plus the table with the list of books from the series that duplicates Piers_Anthony_bibliography#Xanth_series . Is anyone here saying that the fictional universe is notable, and if so, what are the sources for that? As for the book series, yes, it may be notable, but there is nothing to salvage for rewrite/cleanup here, outside the duplicated list of books. If this is kept in the current form, we are doing readers a disservice, providing them a poorer version of fancrufty plot summary instead of encyclopedic analysis that needs to be recreated on the ashes of what we have here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment This source seems to be a biography of Pierce Anthony and has a 9-page chapter on Xanth, both about the series (four novels then) and the world. I can't see it completely, but it does have some commentary on the world on pages 73-76, e.g. "Xanth, which is itself an inversion of scientific realities. There magic is natural" (p. 75), "Anthony... apparently decided to invest his magical land of Xanth with every fantastical conception ever invented...", "so much so that readers have found its lushness of detail digressive" (p. 73). Daranios ( talk) 19:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep and possibly Rename to "Xanth series" or something of the kind, to clarify that the article is about the book series and not just the fictional world? PianoDan ( talk) 03:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  That is a suggestion I'm open to, but which should be raised on its talk page. I'm annoyed to see the article here as an AfD without being first discussed there (there is a section, but no one has added to it yet). —  CJDOS, Sheridan, OR ( talk) 21:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep Yes, this article needs to be refocused to be about the series itself (which ostensibly is) and not about the fictional world (which is how it reads now) but I don't see why the article has to be deleted to do that. In my opinion this is a true case of an article needing cleanup, not deletion. Rhino131 ( talk) 14:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep not seeing an applicable deletion rationale here outside of just liking deleting things. Artw ( talk) 16:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Article needs improvement, as outlined in this discussion summary, but using it as a rationale for deletion is going too far. Just because encyclopedic sources haven't been added, does not mean they don't exist. Discuss major changes on its talk page as necessary. —  CJDOS, Sheridan, OR ( talk) 20:59, 18 January 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. Geschichte ( talk) 16:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Caroline Fox

Caroline Fox (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another member of the non-notable Fox family of Falmouth (see also deletion discussions for Barclay, Alfred and Samuel Middleton. Wikipedia is not WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Non-notable author with most of the sources coming from her own essays. Penale52 ( talk) 17:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:ANYBIO as the subject of an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography. That entry was included and updated in Oxford's contemporary edition ( doi: 10.1093/ref:odnb/10019) and she also has a chapter in the Oxford Companion to English Literature to boot ( [13]). Please look into the subject of an article WP:BEFORE you nominate it for deletion. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 18:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Well, WP:ANYBIO says someone is likely to be notable if they are chronicled in something like the Dictionary of National Biography, not guaranteed to be. This reads like a love letter to this person, and it seems her journal extracts Memories of Old Friends would be the source of most of her notability, but even that lacks an article. Penale52 ( talk) 18:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes, in this case the likelihood of notability is confirmed by at least two three other encyclopedia entries besides DNB: the Oxford Companion I mentioned above; this in Women in World History; and this. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or in this case "other stuff (i.e., Memories of Old Friends) does not exist" is not an argument for deleting this article. It is an argument for creating another. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 20:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply