Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 30 January 01 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Romani people in Sweden

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

I am proposing a blank-and-redirect of these two articles to Norwegian and Swedish Travellers. Both articles are clear content forks of this much longer and more comprehensive article on the broader ethnic group. Both articles were previously redirects until they were both turned into stubs ( Sweden, Norway). Dan • ✉ 23:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply


The article can expanded from the Swedish article

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_i_Sverige — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.192.81.61 ( talk) 00:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. Romani people are a recognize minority in Sweden:

https://www.informationsverige.se/en/om-sverige/individens-rattigheter-och-skyldigheter/rattigheter-for-nationella-minoriteter-och-urfolk.html#:~:text=There%20are%20five%20recognised%20historical,language%2C%20culture%2C%20and%20history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.192.81.61 ( talk) 00:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Norwegian and Swedish Travellers are just a subgroup. It doesn't talk about Romani people and Romani history in those countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.192.81.61 ( talk) 00:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I disagree with the characterisation of this article as merely a content fork. While Norwegian and Swedish Travellers is the more ambitious article, Romani people in Sweden has a different – in some ways much broader – scope. Speaking from the Swedish perspective, the Norwegian and Swedish Travellers are a specific group who have lived in Sweden for hundreds of years. Romani people in Sweden covers all Romani, including many who have immigrated to Sweden in the last century and who aren't part of the Norwegian and Swedish Travellers. Information about the latter doesn't fit into the Norwegian and Swedish Travellers article. / Julle ( talk) 12:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per arguments above. -- Artene50 ( talk) 23:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the above explanations, this is an overlapping article with Swedish Travellers not a redundant fork. Eluchil404 ( talk) 08:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Rel (DBMS)

Rel (DBMS) (  | 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 software. Two of the sources are simply about the relational model this product aims to implement, with no mention of the product itself. The third source is a non-independent promotional page. The website gives no indication that it's widely used, and the code has fewer than 100 stars on Github. Ghosts of Europa ( talk) 21:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

European Party for Individual Liberty

European Party for Individual Liberty (  | 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 an obscure European party that doesn't appear to have representation at any level, made up of a number of other small, obscure political parties. Its cited sources are its own Facebook page (which has been inactive since 2019) and an archived article on the website of one of its constituent parties. I have found no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, so it doesn't appear to meet our general notability guidelines. As such, I propose the article's deletion. Grnrchst ( talk) 21:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Indian Wireless Telegraph Rules

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

No assertion or evidence of notability Orange Mike | Talk 22:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Law, Technology, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Insignificant stub with zero indication of notability. Kerberous ( talk) 12:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. These rules are delegated legislation made under the powers conferred by section 7 of that Act. We normally redirect statutory rules to the Act under which they were made, if the rules are not themselves notable. There is some coverage in Google Books and the Internet Archive. James500 ( talk) 14:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge to the Act as suggested seems fine, I don't see the need to have the rules spelled out otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Herman E. Talmadge Jr.

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

I can't find any sources outside of obituaries or news articles related to the court case. Nothing here shows notability. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 22:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Roces

Roces (  | 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)

Appears to fail WP:ORG. Editor10293813 ( talk) 22:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

YMCA Camp Flaming Arrow

YMCA Camp Flaming Arrow (  | 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)

Appears to be a non-notable subject per WP:ORG. Editor10293813 ( talk) 22:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - It was a big deal in its time and place (San Antonio, Texas area). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, compounded by other problems, the camp closed permanently in 2021. — Maile ( talk) 19:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete As well as the source referenced in the article, I have also found this article from the San Antonio Report about its closure. Two reliable sources, but all they really say about the camp itself is that it existed and that it's closing due to financial issues. The articles really touched me, it seems a real shame for the community to have lost such a valuable resource, but I don't think it passes the "significant" part of the GNG. pinktoebeans (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Very Weak Delete. The other source for the closing looks to be A San Antonio Express News article. I also found a listing in Texas Outdoor Adventure Guide for Kids [1] which looks like fairly substantial coverage to me. A search of newspaper archives found plenty of routine coverage and some more substantial coverage that on closer inspection is YMCA generated content on sponsored pages (i.e. adds disguised as newspaper articles). Very little of the coverage available is both substantial and independent which is a definite shame. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Okaihau Branch. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Cameron's Crossing railway station

Cameron's Crossing railway station (  | 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 little evidence of a station existing by this name. The article has two sources; one of which itself cites Wikipedia and is likely a WP:REFLOOP. The only other source is a line entry in a list of all railway stations in New Zealand by their opening and closing dates. Looking at maps of the line using MapsPast during the era which this source says the station was operational, there is no sign of a station between Kawiti and Ngapipito (the supposed location of Cameron's Crossing per the main Okaihau Branch article).

A substantial online search has also turned up nothing (most results were along the lines of "Cameron's crossing of the..." rather than a place by that name), and a search by Daveosaurus of papers from the time using Papers Past turned up no results for the supposed area of the station (but did find earlier references to a station by that name in Southland, which was renamed as Makarewa Junction and is covered in the article of Makarewa). The WP:PROD was delisted with a suggestion to consider alternatives such as a merge or redirect, but given the station doesn't have any solid evidence of its existence these don't seem like suitable options. Turnagra ( talk) 20:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

That's odd. I did a search of Papers Past and found reference to Cameron's Crossing being located opposite Orauta Native School. Paora ( talk) 21:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Definitely interesting. There is something there and visible on Retrolens https://files.interpret.co.nz/Retrolens/Imagery/SN209/Crown_209_551_57/High.jpg as at 1950 - it could be a 10' x 10' shed, or it could (with some imagination) be a tiny railway station, but it's not named or shown as a station (or even as any building at all) on NZMS 1 as at 1942 https://geodatahub.library.auckland.ac.nz/public/maps/LINZ/NZMS/NZMS_001/jpg/NZMS001_N15_1942.jpg or as at 1965 https://geodatahub.library.auckland.ac.nz/public/maps/LINZ/NZMS/NZMS_001/jpg/NZMS001_N15_1965.jpg . Daveosaurus ( talk) 10:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Turnagra, Cameron's Crossing is still mentioned in Okaihau Branch (closed 28 January 1974). If that is wrong, we should correct it. Even if it is a former station, redirecting to Okaihau Branch is still a viable WP:ATD is it not? ~ Kvng ( talk) 21:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I wanted the AfD discussion to take place first, in case something came out that I missed and it turned out that it actually did exist and we'd need to edit the Okaihau Branch article again. I'm still not entirely convinced that a specific station by this name existed (though I'm less certain after Paora's find), which is why I didn't suggest a redirect instead. Turnagra ( talk) 21:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I'll see what Bruce Hermann's 2007 book North Island branch lines has to say when the libraries reopen on 3 January. Paora ( talk) 22:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don't know Northland well enough to be sure enough to !vote "delete", but I was not able to find any railway station under that name in Papers Past other than an ephemeral station somewhere near Makarewa Junction, Southland, in the 1870s. Daveosaurus ( talk) 10:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: If there's not enough information to prove the station even existed, there's definitely not enough to pass GNG. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge / redirect to Okaihau Branch. There is sufficient evidence that there was a stop called Cameron's Crossing 7 km from the Otiria end of the line, from the railway notice in the Northern Advocate of 22 March 1941, stating that trains on the line would being stopping at Cameron's Crossing, opposite Orauta School, on 24 March 1941. The Orauta School, which closed in 2005, is 7 km along the branch line from Otiria, which tallies with the information in the Okaihau Branch article. However, after reviewing the print sources available at Auckland Central Library about the Okaihau Branch, my conclusion was that, with the possible exceptions of the stations at Otiria, Kaikohe and Okaihau, none of the other stations could be regarded as meeting WP notability criteria, and other than the Northern Advocate advertisement and the references already in the article, I could find no other reference to Cameron's Crossing Station. Paora ( talk) 10:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks Paora - based on this new (old) information, I'm happy with it being kept or redirected depending on the particular notability requirements for train stations. I'm thinking that a redirect may still be the best option, but I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other. Turnagra ( talk) 18:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge to Okaihau Branch. Paora's source checks out and I have added it to Okaihau Branch to support the mention of Cameron's Crossing there. I hope someone with more railway notability experience now chimes in to help us decide whether this merits a stand-alone article or a redirect. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but edit to correct the opening date and add location. The 1941 advert shows it opened on 24 March 1941, rather than on 1 May 1914. It also mentions it was opposite the native school, which is marked on maps past. The Retrolens photo shows it west of Rogers Road, which would place it at about -35.4163 173.935161. Yonge's Railway Atlas shows it 6.88km, rather than 7km. A Facebook post mentions railway houses at the ballast pit. The school jubilee booklet says trains stopped for the school from 1930 and that the school was moved in November 1941. The booklet also has a photo of the Kauri Timber Company line near Lake Kaiwai, which is also marked on the atlas. Johnragla ( talk) 20:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge / redirect to Okaihau Branch. Nowhere near enough info for a standalone article. Nurg ( talk) 07:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • If this article is merged with the branch article, then for consistency, the same should be done for all the other station articles, which have even less information available than this one. Johnragla ( talk) 10:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    I agree. Merge them all. Nurg ( talk) 10:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 21:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

OSRMT (software)

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

Likely non-notable software that doesn't appear to have any significant third-party coverage. Logan Talk Contributions 20:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The article have all necessary sources and references. I think it is meeting all the Wikipedia guidelines. And should remain on Wikipedia. Problem can be fixed But that doesn't mean it should be deleted Mukarram ( talk) 20:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I couldn't find any independent coverage. Fails NSOFT. Owen× ☎ 23:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Non-notable software without any reliable sourcing or significant and/or independent coverage. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 14:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hiber Nation (album)

Hiber Nation (album) (  | 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 and NALBUM. Nothing found from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  //  Timothy ::  talk  20:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 21:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

KoiKoi Nelligan

AfDs for this article:
KoiKoi Nelligan (  | 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)

My views since the first AfD remain the same. The subject fails WP:GNG and there has been no increase in coverage since the first nomination. None of the sourcing in the article suggests significant coverage also. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 19:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Quentin Newcomer

AfDs for this article:
Quentin Newcomer (  | 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)

My views since the first Afd remain the same. Fails WP:GNG and there has been no increase in coverage since the first AfD. None of the sourcing in the article suggests significant coverage either. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 19:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Brady Daniel

AfDs for this article:
Brady Daniel (  | 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)

My views since the first Afd remain the same, still fails WP:GNG and there has been no increase in coverage since the first AfD. None of the sources in the article suggest significant coverage either Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 19:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

1993–2016 military reforms in Azerbaijan

1993–2016 military reforms in Azerbaijan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article advances the thesis that Azerbaijan reformed its military during the period 1993-2016. There is no independent reliable sourcing to substantiate that. Furthermore, most of the article is poorly written, poorly sourced text that doesn't touch on the supposed reforms. If there is ant content worth keeping, it can be merged with articles on Azerbaijan's military. Thenightaway ( talk) 19:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with seasoning Star Mississippi 20:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Orkhan Mammadov

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

This article was deleted in 2022 for failing meet notability requirements. It was subsequently recreated and it still fails notability requirements. There is no independent reliable sourcing of the subject. All the sourcing is by Azerbaijani government outlets. The subject heads the Small and Medium Business Development Agency (Azerbaijan) which is not a notable entity either (it's one of countless state initiatives created by the authoritarian regime in Azerbaijan). Thenightaway ( talk) 18:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and SALT - what has changed since the last AFD? Giant Snowman 13:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Still sourced to government press releases, nothing otherwise about this person. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not meet GNG. -- DonCalo ( talk) 21:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:NOP from my prospective. I don't know why you would want to SALT a government officials name. I've seen far worse off articles on American representation get kept for less. I don't believe Azerbaijan sources have really been looked into. :/ Govvy ( talk) 16:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Govvy, did you mean to link NPOL? Where are you seeing that he would meet that? JoelleJay ( talk) 21:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ JoelleJay: Yep, I meant to link to WP:NPOL, but alas, I find it odd behaviour at AfD by the delete voters, there are citations on the article, but has anyone actually analysed them? From what I see, not all the sources are government branches or press releases. I don't know about the independency of the sources, but I see a bit of a mix of primary and secondary. But at the end of the day, and often enough no one really looks at what a source is doing. From my prospective, a source is about verifying the text on the article, is the text correct? Is the content right? Is the content source? From that prospective, it all looks correct to me. So what do the deletionists want? I don't understand whats wrong here. I don't get the argument for a deletion. Govvy ( talk) 13:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    But...what makes him meet NPOL? And you know articles need to meet much more than just V to exist... JoelleJay ( talk) 18:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - all citations are mentions or not independent, so there is no proper coverage. Royal88888 ( talk) 07:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Pestom sagar

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

No indication of notability for this specific neighborhood/residential place (and no sources given). ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 19:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. More participation here would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Agree with nom. I'm just getting real estate listings when searching - nothing that motivates a really deep source check. -- asilvering ( talk) 02:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

ANYbotics

ANYbotics (  | 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 NCORP. Sources I could find are either trade publications or routine coverage of funding. Only RSes I could find are a couple of articles in CNBC. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 18:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be nice to get a second opinion on these sources that have been found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Tilmaneee ( talk) 19:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Libertarian Party (Spain)

Libertarian Party (Spain) (  | 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 an obscure Spanish micro-party that has barely managed to pull together 0.01% of the vote in general elections. The only source cited in this article is the party's own FAQ section on its website. Searching around, I can't find any reliable secondary sources that have given the party significant coverage. The Spanish Wikipedia article es:Partido Libertario (España) was also deleted this year as having no relevance to the encyclopedia. As this organisation appears to fail our general notability guidelines I propose this article be deleted. Grnrchst ( talk) 18:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The Wumpus Search Engine

The Wumpus Search Engine (  | 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)

Certainly fails WP:GNG; sources found are ether written by an affiliated person (thus not independent) or brief mentions. Toadette ( Merry Christmas, and a happy new year) 18:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Top of the Town (brothel)

Top of the Town (brothel) (  | 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 fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. There are six sources on the page, which include papers of record, so these are WP:RS but per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, the articles cited are primary sources, and primary sources do not count towards notability. What has not been established is any reason why this brothel is notable and the subject of significant secondary coverage, and not just another brothel. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 13:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Australia. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 13:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Articles like Childs, Kevin (21 June 1991), "Birthday brothel celebrates legality", The Age and Barrowclough, Nikki (29 June 1991), "$ex inc", Good Weekend (The Age) are more than just news and the latter mentions a review in a Japanese magazine Themis. Ormonde, Tom (13 July 1990), "Japanese lust after city's new image", The Age is about that review. duffbeerforme ( talk) 06:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for these. Childs (1991) writes about the first birthday of legality. This falls squarely in primary source territory. It mentions a new promotions manager, and that must raise some questions about independence. But yes, definitely a primary source. Barrowclough (1991) writes an editorial 8 days after the newspaper ran an article mentioning the new promotions manager. Again, there might be questions about independence here, but the piece remains a primary source. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Do you have a link for (Ormonde, 1990) so I can take a look at that one?
    The real question is still: what makes this brothel actually notable? What is the encyclopaedic article on the subject meant to be about? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Keep I think Sirfurboy🏄 is putting undue emphasis on the primary news issue, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Its written about (and notable) because it's a large, long-standing and well-known place in a highly prominent position on one of Melbourne's main streets, which is also pretty unusual. Boneymau ( talk) 00:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply
      PRIMARYNOTBAD is saying that primary sources can be useful in an article when used appropriately. The point here is not that we cannot use a primary source, but that they do not count towards demonstrating notability. The relevant guideline is WP:SIRS. This says:

      Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.
      ...
      4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

      Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 11:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nomination, which I find convincing. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 05:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    The nomination is advocating delete. LibStar ( talk) 06:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply
You are right, I have changed my vote to reflect what I mean. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 01:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete most of the sources are not indepth coverage of the brothel and fail WP:SIGCOV eg stories on sex workers. The first sentence is refbombed with 5 sources. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk) 10:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for further input regarding whether the sources meet SIGCOV so a consensus can form either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 18:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Dhiman

Dhiman (  | 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 content within this article lacks verifiability, neutrality, and contains original research. The article is authored by a contributor( User:Karandhimanbahre) with a potential conflict of interest(see his other contributions/talk page) with not enough citations/reliable sources.

I believe the article does not meet Wikipedia standards. It lacks inline citations, and the information about the notable individuals(removed now) [21] and companies appear to be without proper verifiable sources.

Moreover, the article is in a state where cleanup or rewriting would require an extensive effort due to its lack of verifiability and biased presentation. Starting this AfD to either delete, fix or draftify this article. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 18:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Literature, Ethnic groups, History, and India. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 18:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- The article is in sad shape, but deletion is not for cleanup. I do not find any blatant WP:OR or WP:SYNTH issues; existing sources pass WP:GNG easily; and additional sources exist based on basic WP:BEFORE searches. I am confused by the WP:NPOV and WP:V complaints in the nom. Other than the fact that the cites are all at the bottom of the article instead of inline, the sources seem to support the article text. I am also disturbed by the accusation of WP:COI in the nom. I think that should be stricken unless the nominator can support how one or more of the authors contributing to the article have a financial stake in the subject of a caste (without outing or doxing that editor). If the COI argument is specific to one or more entries in the Current Accomplishments section, that (again) is a matter of cleanup, not an argument for deletion. Overall, I see no valid policy reasons to delete the article, and I feel that deletion will not improve the encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 12:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    My suggestion is to blow it up and start over. With regards to WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:V, the author/major contributor User:Karandhimanbahre, has 44 edits in total. [22]. Subject has 79.9% content from the user:Karandhimanbahre.

    The name Karandhimanbahre and their userpage clearly indicates they are from the Dhiman subset. Also has a previous COI warning from submitting this article initially [23] and tried to create Jatinder Dhiman recently. Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. My COI argument is not because of the entries in the Current Accomplishments section but from WP:EXTERNALREL.

    It's widely known that upper-caste Indians often proudly display their caste identity, carrying it with them wherever they go. Ex: Karandhimanbahre's user page. Now to clarify WP:OR, Is there any source for the notable names and companies mentioned on the article actually belongs to the Dhiman subset? No.
    In the Culture section, Dhimans are group of people, who took Engineering and Technology works as an occupation. and The community is moving very highly in society in both business and education. I believe there was no term called technology those days and the 2nd quote is not NPOV. Similarly in Current Accomplishments, Today, we can see people from Dhimans group leading in many sectors. From business, art, and science to politics, people from this group are showcasing strong accomplishments.

    "Dhiman-Brahmin are on-par with the Brahmins in the current time, whereas until the early 1500s they were above the rest of Brahmins in the social hierarchy." looks like it has been rephrased from Panchal, This is enough for this editor to be not anywhere near this article. Looks like the whole section Dhiman is copied from Panchal. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 14:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see similarities between Dhiman and Panchal—almost identical from section to section with only some words replaced. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 14:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Superb analysis and explanation, Jeraxmoira. Thank you! I am still deeply uncomfortable with using COI outside PROMO issues, but I know that caste is a special case for many policies and guidelines. I'm concerned that allowing the idea to creep too far would mean excluding Brits from articles about UK culture and history, or blocking LGBTQIA2S+ from articles about gay and transgender topics. That said, editorial bias of any kind damages the encyclopaedia, so removing it is a good idea. On balance, though, is it reasonable for an entire article about a caste to be scrapped due to COI issues of a single editor? That worries me.
As I said above, I think that the subject passes GNG and is worthy of an encyclopaedic article. I do agree with the callouts above as examples of puffery or likely POV issues that need to be excised, but I just can't see the article as a whole being TNTed for it. Do you really think that there is literally nothing in the article that can be salvaged? That seems... harsh. I think a stronger approach would be to keep the article and ruthlessly, sentence by sentence, strip out everything that cannot be directly supported by RS. The citations in the article and the additional ones readily available on gScholar or gBooks should give us a strong starting point for a better article. In short, I think this is still a Keep and that the discussion should move to WP:BRD and the Talk page. I am quite willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I'm not seeing a good reason (yet). Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 15:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I get what you're saying about COI and the need to salvage articles, but this cannot be compared to your examples as here it is proven that the major contributor has a COI with the article. First off, the article was created in May 2023 and is not a long standing one. From the page history, the only significant contributor is the author himself. Secondly, most parts are copied from Panchal as I have mentioned in my previous reply. And I don't think WP:BRD is of any use here as everything in this article can be removed because of no inline citations. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. In this case, the article would end up empty, which is why I initiated this AFD.
FWIW, if you believe the current sources meet GNG (even though many might fall under WP:RAJ and therefore are not reliable), then the article should be draftified until someone completely rewrites it. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 17:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify at minimum. AFD may not be cleanup but this is an article that does not have any inline citations that falls directly under the purview of ongoing general sanctions. This cannot be acceptable for mainspace. microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish· growths) 20:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or draftify at the very least. Article is inherently flawed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is a very strong WP:TNT case. When we're dealing with an article that has no inline sources, is completely disputed, and is on a topic that falls under disciplinary sanctions... sometimes AfD does actually have to be cleanup. -- asilvering ( talk) 03:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or otherwise remove from mainspace. This is unlikely to be suitable as a base to write a properly sourced article. Most of the cited sources are not really reliable for the topic presented, i.e. Hindu scritptures, colonial era ethnography, mentions of actors with a particular last name, or don't support the content of the article (e.g. the government reports about the Tarkhan (Punjab) caste that only mentions Dhiman as a synonym of that group. In short it needs new content based on new sources to be a viable article and thus is a reasonable candidate for WP:TNT. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Jorge Planas Ribó

Jorge Planas Ribó (  | 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)

Unambiguous WP:RESUME, sourced to the subjects CV and a single editorial. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to The June Junes. Daniel ( talk) 07:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Jacbern

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to The June Junes, as above. Seems like a credible WP:ATD "at this time", although I can't say I am too sure about the long term viability of the target article either. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Meredith Badger

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 23:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. I have looked for book reviews on Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, and Booklist, as well as a general Google and Google Scholar search, but haven't found any reviews for her books -- nor any other reliable, independent sources that discuss the author. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 16:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator: Thank you, Bridget, for pointing out the pseudonym! I somehow missed that when I nominated for AFD. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 23:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Namsangol Hanok Village. Given the lack of RS, there's nothing to merge. History is preserved should sourcing come to fruition Star Mississippi 20:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Namsan Traditional Theater

Namsan Traditional Theater (  | 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)

Possibly not separately notable enough, even if there are some mentions of it. Possibly merge into Namsangol Hanok Village, but this artilce is not so substantial imo that we need to have an outstanding merge waiting for someone willing to do it (I'm not willing to). I think a delete is ok toobigtokale ( talk) 16:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rendering withdrawal with extent delete !vote moot Star Mississippi 20:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Paul Ford (technologist)

Paul Ford (technologist) (  | 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)

None of the sources given are 3P. Additionally, I'm having a bit of trouble finding 3P sources about this individual, seems non-notable. Sohom ( talk) 16:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Chad–Spain relations

Chad–Spain 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)

Another bilateral article almost entirely based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and not subject to third party coverage. No embassies, no state visits in over 40 years of relations. Most of the cooperation happens in multilateral contexts. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk) 15:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Spain. LibStar ( talk) 15:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Yet another example of a standalone article being created for every combination of two nations, no matter how insignificant their connexion may be. The subject is not encyclopaedic, the sources presented are all WP:PRIMARY (government press), and there is no secondary analysis, depth or other indication of notability. I can find no scholarly treatment of this relationship nor mentions in reputable journals. Merging to one or both countries' articles might be possible, but I can find no info particularly worth merging and no sourcing on which to base such a merge. Redir begs the question of which country to redirect towards (and do we really expect this as a search string?). Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 13:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No indication of meeting WP:N. Let'srun ( talk) 22:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Elkhan Mammadov (football official)

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

The subject's main claim to notability appears to be that they held the third most senior position in the Azerbaijan football federation (general secretary). Thenightaway ( talk) 15:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Gambia–Spain relations

Gambia–Spain 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)

Another in the series of Spanish bilateral articles almost entirely based on the Foreign Ministry website. Trade is very low, Spanish aid and investment is non existent as stated in the article. No evidence of state visits or significant migration or cultural interaction. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk) 15:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Spain. LibStar ( talk) 15:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and per dearth of WP:SIGCOV. Yilloslime ( talk) 00:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Yet another example of a standalone article being created for every combination of two nations, no matter how insignificant their connexion may be. The subject is not encyclopaedic, the sources presented are all WP:PRIMARY (government press), and there is no secondary analysis, depth or other indication of notability. I can find no scholarly treatment of this relationship nor mentions in reputable journals. Merging to one or both countries' articles might be possible, but I can find no info particularly worth merging and no sourcing on which to base such a merge. Redir begs the question of which country to redirect towards (and do we really expect this as a search string?). Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 13:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Ghost (operating system)

Ghost (operating system) (  | 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)

Couldn't find reliable secondary sources. QuietCicada - Talk 14:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. QuietCicada - Talk 14:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Unable to find coverage that isn't the project website or github page, doesn't meet WP:GNG. If every hobby OS needed a page we'd be here all week with random articles. Author of the article is the person who made the program, making it a WP:COI issue as well. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk) 18:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I was unable to find any secondary sources referencing the Ghost kernel. Holzklöppel ( talk) 21:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Vusal Gasimli

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

There is little that indicates that the subject meets general notability requirements or academic notability requirements. The subject has not been covered by independent reliable sources. The subject has headed several non-notable government-created research institutions in Azerbaijan. The article, which is written like a resume, was authored by a likely COI account. Thenightaway ( talk) 14:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Also, there are 22 (!) other Azerbaijani AFDs from the same day to participate in.‎ Geschichte ( talk) 16:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Garib Mammadov

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

There is nothing that indicates that the subject is notable. The subject is not a notable academic. The subject heads the State Land and Cartography Committee (Azerbaijan) but it does not appear to be a cabinet-level position in Azerbaijan. The page appears intended to promote the subject. Thenightaway ( talk) 13:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I missed that. I agree that the article should be kept as he meets the notability reqs for a politician. Thenightaway ( talk) 16:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Deputy of the first convocation of the Milli Majlis of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Atakhanli ( talk) 15:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Centre for Social Research (Azerbaijan)

Centre for Social Research (Azerbaijan) (  | 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 organization was created by the Azerbaijan government in 2019 and a Wikipedia page was shortly thereafter created by a likely COI account who is singularly focused on promoting the Azerbaijan government. There is nothing that indicates that this is a notable research institution. Thenightaway ( talk) 13:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Legacy of Roberto Clemente

Legacy of Roberto Clemente (  | 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)

Setting aside no other baseball player (or athlete) has a seperate page for their legacy (since it can easily be fitted into their main articles), majority of this page a list of quotes praising (and some ONLY mentioning) Clemente and a list of books on Clemente which are already cited in the main article. I admire Clemente as much as anyone can but this page is unnecessary and almost certainly violates WP:NPOV since it seems to be made by a fan and WP:POVFORK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnis Scientia ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment There may be policy-based reasons to delete the article, but no other baseball player having a legacy article (there can be a first if enough RS-based content is there), or a fan maybe writing this article (we shouldn't judge motivation per WP:AGF), aren't among them. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 17:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ StefenTower, not judging motive, just that it has little to do with the legacy of Clemente, and most of this stuff is already present on his main page or Wikiquote page. I should clarify: I believe it violates WP:NPOV because it is very one-sided, not because it was made by a Clemente fan. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 17:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, WP:NPOV is a policy you can use here, of course - I wasn't knocking that. Many editors are fans of subjects they write about, and I just don't think that automatically leads to not following policies/guidelines. Also, my comments so far should not be taken as my !vote or discussion on the actual merits of the AfD. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 17:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
@ StefenTower, I'm a baseball fan myself so I completely understand what you're saying but what I meant by a "fan" is that they wrote it like a fan's tribute to Clemente rather than as someone who is interested in baseball. I hope that clears any misunderstanding. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 22:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the page is full of sources (easily meets GNG) and information about this Hall of Fame baseball player and noted humanitarian. Clemente's legacy and work deserves a page such as this, thanks for pointing it out. As for being one-sided, if there are sources listing negative information about Clemente's work and life please add them to the page. That's it's not balanced with negativity doesn't seem a good reason to delete. Randy Kryn ( talk) 10:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Randy Kryn, by balance, I don't mean negativity. The creator of the article basically cut out a lot of material from the main page and the Wikiquote page. This page gives no information on Clemente that isn't already present in the main article or anything new but instead lists positive opinions of his contemporaries with the addition of having lists of books and documentaries. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 12:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Any relevant information on this page is already present on Clemente's main page. It does not discuss his humanitarian work a lot either which, IMO, fits far better on the main page ( Roberto Clemente) given how it was tied to his untimely death. I'm still in favor of deleting. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 12:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the explanation. You may be right, but since legacy pages are allowed on Wikipedia this one likely fits as long as it was created. Where does the encyclopedia draw the line when legacy pages are allowed? Clemente is such a national hero in Puerto Rico that he is likely the islands most famous citizen, and "legacy" probably covers such a prominent connection between the individual and his/her home. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    That is the problem though, @ Randy Kryn. This so-called legacy page does not even discuss his connection with Puerto Rico or his humanitarian work except in passing, nor does it list his significance or achievements, all of which are listed in the main page. It is just a list of quotes and books on Clemente. And I don't see a way of improving it without making it a duplicate of half the main article. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 12:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Randy Kryn, any chance you will change your vote given the lack of information about Clemente in this page? I remind you again that there is already a Category:Roberto Clemente for articles related to Clemente and any relevant information on this page is in " Roberto Clemente" or " Roberto Clemente Award" (and so on). This "legacy" page is nothing more than a list of opinions praising Clemente and books which, again, are already listed and cited on the main article. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 09:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I would much prefer that this article be deleted due to its lack of information on Clemente and the focus be on improving the main article (which needs a lot of improvement) and not this secondary page created from material lifted from " Roberto Clemente" and its sister links. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 09:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Omnis Scientia, if anything on the page had been removed from the main article just to fork it to this one it should certainly be put back. As a stand-alone page I personally like the emphasis on quotes, but as you say, they duplicate Wikiquote material, so it's a question of relying on Wikiquote to fill a gap in Wikipedia article styling. Since someone took the time to organize the page, and it reads interestingly and focused, the elements lacking can be added in. As for the nomination, this will probably be relisted unless other editors chime in. I'm a little surprised others from the Wikiproject Baseball haven't as yet, but the holidays usually are slower for things like this. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Randy Kryn, but that is exactly the problem, you see: literally all the elements you think lack here are already in the main article and in more detail and with reliable sources. It seems you're ignoring that part entirely and focusing too much on the "legacy" part.
I also don't think it reads well or is particularly focused on anything but the opinions of players and coaches about different aspects of Clemente's game or personality. In some cases, the quote is not even about Clemente but mentions him in passing or in reference to another player.
Again: I would MUCH prefer to improve the main article's quality than focus on trying to salvage this mix of quotes which violates WP:POVFORK and WP:NPOV. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 13:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
And, IMO, you should also be in favor of improving the main article which focuses on Clemente's legacy as a player or his player profile to match the format of other HOF players. To cut out info from there just to salvage this page, as you seem to imply, or even copy it from there is just not a good idea. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 13:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Just a thought for you. Because Clemente's page is prone attracting... um... overenthusiastic fans. This page is just the biggest example. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 13:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
No, nothing should be cut from the main article, if you read something I said as implying that then its incorrect. Forks should never harm or remove major data from their parent pages, but many do. When others chime here the page will likely be deleted. My own view is that Wikiquote is fine but it is not Wikipedia, and since someone took the time to put this Clemente page up, and it covers the praise and honors received by someone who deserves focus on his legacy, when asked if it should be kept or deleted I'd personally go with keep (I've been called an ultra-inclusionist as an insult which I take as a compliment, so am probably an outlier regarding your reading of Wikipedia rules and regs. I've read the page over again and do like it). Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Randy Kryn, there are MANY athletes who deserve focus on their legacy and that is always covered sufficiantly on their pages because that is where people tend to read about an athlete more.
And contrary to what you have said a few times, this page does not cover "praise and honors" (as you said) Clemente has received in any way that is relevant. It does not discuss what he has done either because, again, that is already mentioned on the main page which is where people go and look for information on Clemente. And having read the policy on content forks, this one doesn't seem to meet the standards. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a reasonable spin out of the Roberto Clemente article which would be overwhelmed if all of this (reliably sourced) material were included. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Eluchil404, if you don't count the quotes (and I don't since there are no baseball pages with a list of quotes on them - and these are on Clemente's Wikiquote page with more detail/context), what little relevant information present in this page is ALREADY on the main page and in more detail (I have been improving the main article for a while now) so there is no danger of " Roberto Clemente" being overwhelmed.
This page has little to do with Clemente's legacy, in any case. It's basically a list of quotes praising Clemente's skills as a player; a few mention him in reference to other players (should be noted that all of these quotes and references - some are without links, I should add - were lifted from Clemente's wikiquote page). Additionally, a spin-off in NOT required to explain what already comfortably fits on the main article and within the word limit. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 18:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Soft Keep. I see no legitimate reason to delete this article based on 1) whether we've had an article like this before for baseball players (else with that attitude how would the Wikipedia have expanded at all?); 2) having this subarticle distracts from working on the main article; 3) that the article doesn't yet have expected details; or 4) that the article is organized poorly (quote lists). Based on the discussion so far for me, the bottom line is whether this is a subject worthy of its own article and if there is likely enough reliable sources to fill it in. My hunch is that the subject easily meets that criteria. Of course, this article shouldn't steal key material from the main article, but part of the rationale for subarticles is to go into greater detail while allowing the main article to summarize (hit the big points). My vote is to keep for now, and give it a chance to improve. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 19:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ StefenTower. I've given a lot of legitimate reasons. The fact of the matter is that this is an article of little substance with little information; it's just quotes (and references) cherrypicked/stolen from Wikiquote - hence WP:NPOV - and (as I have emphasized many times) any relevant material is already on Clemente's main page in greater detail. And there are already many articles on Clemente which already delve into his legacy in further detail, (all are listed on Template:Roberto Clemente). As I mentioned earlier: this is nothing more than a fan's tribute to Clemente and there is frankly no point or purpose to try and fix it when there are already well-written articles on this very topic. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    I accept you have a heartfelt opinion here, but I don't agree with the apparent exasperation you relay. Again, the bottom line is that the subject is worthy of an article, and I am not going to judge its existence on anyone's assumed motivation of involved editors per WP:AGF. It's not merely fandom that would produce such an article. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 21:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ StefenTower, if I sound exasperated it is because I can't seem to get my point across as to why this article is pointless. And, to clarify, I am not judging the creator of this article for being a Clemente fan. I'm judging the article as being one-sided and created of lifted material from other articles about Clemente. The reliable sources are all from Wikiquote as well; some don't even have links in them.
    I should also note that you undid the speedy deletion of this article as well and long after this page was deleted/redirected to the main article but gave no reason for doing so other that it was "well-sourced" - but that is not why this page was deleted then and it isn't why I nominated it now. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    I undid a Prod, and I didn't have to have a reason for that other than suggesting it should go through a more complete review. Other than that, your reply here seems to be desirous of me doing another round of debate with you. Re-stating things isn't constructive or a best use of time. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 03:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Honestly, I have seen no good reason from anyone voting "keep". That it MIGHT be improved or that it has reliable sources are not good reasons to keep an article and are besides the point: it is that the article A) one-sided and B) pointless because the main page - and several other articles on Clemente - already covers Clemente's legacy and does it better. Hence, there is no point in salvaging this article. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    This seems very close to wikilawyering. That you don't agree with others' reasons doesn't mean they aren't valid. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Summary of my !vote: Likely loads of WP:RS for expansion, worthy subtopic of very notable subject with a tremendous legacy ("Legacy of..." articles being an established thing at WP, to boot), and WP:SOFIXIT. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 07:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: We have articles like Public image of Mother Teresa, Public image of Taylor Swift, and Public image of George W. Bush. I think this could easily be refactored into a Public image of Roberto Clemente page consistent with that series of articles. BD2412 T 02:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    That is certainly a constructive thought, but it seems that "legacy" is inclusive of "public image". Legacy isn't just about what people have said and continue to say about the subject, but what things (e.g. laws and culture) were changed because of the subject. What exists now because Clemente was around? I think about this a lot when working on the article of Muhammad Ali as one hard example. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Also, poking around a bit, I see that articles like Legacy of George Washington and Legacy of Alan Turing exist. It seems within bounds to stay parked where we are. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 03:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Tarun Poddar

AfDs for this article:
Tarun Poddar (  | 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)

Lesser-known Indian entrepreneur already deleted last month, recreated by an editor with 11 edits, still appears to mostly include routine/promotional sources. Suspicion of COI and/or same user creating a new account. (Didn't G4 as I couldn't see the contents of the previous deleted version of the article) ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 12:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 12:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per nomination. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk) 18:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Same as last time, still not notable. Talking to media about what and where your company invests isn't what's needed here. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - And based on the SOCK involvement, would recommend salting. Mainly mentions which do not add up to significant coverage. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 21:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Pretty clear promotional article, backed by blogs, promotional puff pieces and sources that lack significant coverage of the person Ravensfire ( talk) 00:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    All these articles are organic, there are no brand posts in them and there is no disclaimer from which it can be said that the article written is correct, that is why it should not be deleted but improved. Please help me to improve this page. Simmi9090 ( talk) 06:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Sources appear to be paid spam. Fails WP:GNG. Maliner ( talk) 13:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    All sources are organic, please double check. Simmi9090 ( talk) 07:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Just a bunch of UPE promotional jittery, nothing else. G11 might be involved. No significant coverage whatsoever. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 23:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    G5 can be invoked now, although at this point we could potentially let the AfD run its course. ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 00:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I think letting it run would be good. Hopefully get a consensus on salting due to the persistence of the film-related sock farms. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 21:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hidden races (Marvel Comics) which seems to have consensus as a target. HIstory is preserved should consensus emerge for a re-target, which is a matter of editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 20:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Homo mermanus

Homo mermanus (  | 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)

Sources are pretty much only primary; there's no indication this meets Wikipedia notability criteria and is a better fit for FANDOM. I think the most likely result of this AfD would be a redirect to Namor or something of that nature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per nom, sourcing is very weak and PRIMARY, and searching looks no better. Maybe best target is Atlantis (Marvel Comics) which discusses the subject in plenty of detail already. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - There is not a single non-primary source being used in this article, and the entire article is almost completely comprised of in-universe plot information. Searches did not turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources that goes beyond mentions in plot summaries. While Atlantis (Marvel Comics) would be the logical choice for a redirect, I would like to point out that article currently has similar sourcing and notability issues as this one. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge with either Hidden races (Marvel Comics) or Atlantis (Marvel Comics) in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Though some of the Homo mermanus are Lemurians and Lemuria is already a redirected link where it is currently redirected to the Features of the Marvel Universe page. If the outcome is merge, I ask that any Homo mermanus characters that redirect to this page have their information transferred to their respectful List of Marvel Comics characters pages in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 21:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve. As editors have pointed out, it needs some secondary sources, but there must be at least a few that could verify the basics, such as first appearances and at least an outline of the basic in-universe mythology. I don't buy the notion that a franchise this old could have eluded all secondary sources; surely some reviews of Black Panther: Wakanda Forever would mention the cinematic versions of the species, its home, and its chief characteristics, although you might need specialist material about Marvel Comics to verify the print versions. This might need to be researched at a library. But I think it can be done. Note that not every fact needs to be in a secondary source: names and basic descriptions of characters or plot lines can come from primary sources. Clearly a lot of work went into this, and while it's not written in a very encyclopedic manner, that's fixable. It's too big to merge into another article without huge cuts. So let's give subject-matter specialist editors a chance to work on it, now that we've identified some of the major issues with the article. P Aculeius ( talk) 14:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Disregarding for a moment that this argument is entirely a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument, there is a difference between Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability, and it is the latter that is the issue in this case. No one here is doubting that the information is accurate, just that it does not pass the WP:GNG. The subject is mentioned in secondary sources, but none of those mentions are WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, if those mentions are nothing but plot summaries or in-universe fictional descriptions, that does not solve the issue of the subject being able to pass WP:NOTPLOT. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
That's an essay, not a policy—in this case there's a near certainty of reliable sources that the nominator doesn't even claim to have looked for. The work in which this material exists is notable, and the subject here is probably too large to be conveniently folded into another topic. If you're familiar with AfD policy, then you know that articles aren't supposed to be deleted because nobody has added the necessary sources, but because such sources don't exist or can't reasonably be located. A quick Google search that doesn't turn them up doesn't really satisfy that expectation. If the topic is mentioned in secondary sources, then it needs to be explained why that coverage is claimed not to be "significant". The sources don't need to cover the topic in the same depth as this article, and you don't need one source that knits them all together. Works of literature are valid sources for their own contents, even if you think the literary form (comic books) is unworthy of encyclopedic treatment. This article, or at least the first couple of sections, is poorly written, but salvageable, and it is certainly not a "plot summary"; WP:NOTPLOT does not apply. We should treat this article as though it were deserving of a concerted effort at improvement, because it clearly can be improved; we shouldn't dismiss it because we don't find the subject serious enough. P Aculeius ( talk) 19:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't think anyone here is of the mind that comics aren't a "serious" form of media. The main issue here is that citing only comic books is a case of all primary sources (Aka, no significant coverage outside of the fictional universe in question is displayed). As for your sourcing argument, if you want that to be valid, then link to this argument sources that exist out there discussing the Homo mermanus in depth. If coverage exists and can be proven and verified as being significant, then yes, notability is proven. However, you can't really exclaim "Sources exist" and then tell someone to go find them. If you believe the topic is notable, prove to the argument that the sources exist. Show sources that prove the topic is notable. Anyone can say sources exist; it's a different matter entirely proving that the sources do, in fact, exist. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 21:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect and merge relevant information to Hidden races (Marvel Comics). While I can't speak for the notability of that page, it's probably the best redirect target, given how messy this whole page and its potential redirects are. Since most of these characters are one-offs, not much is being lost by dumping the character list, but some of the relevant species info is worthwhile to preserve for the time being. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 22:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect there is very little reliable secondary coverage here. Some of it could be selectively merged, but it does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker ( talk) 04:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Hidden races (Marvel Comics). The entry there might be slightly expanded but most of this is only sourced to primary sources (i.e. the comics themselves) and not really appropriate for Wikipedia. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Iskandar Shirali

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

The subject does not appear to meet general notability requirements, nor notability requirements as an academic or government official. Thenightaway ( talk) 12:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Azerbaijan. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Badly sourced and promotional. As the nominator states, he does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, nor WP:PROF. I tried multiple spellings of his name in Google Scholar but did not find publications with significant citations. The closest thing to a claim of notability is "Corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Engineering" but as a lower-level membership in an association that prominently charges a membership fee [30] I'm skeptical that this is the sort of scholarly honor that passes WP:PROF#C3. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Sandstein 16:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Nigar Shaji

Nigar Shaji (  | 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)

Duplicate announcements on a person's promotion within India Aerospace Organization. Fails the Anybio criteria Moem-Meom ( talk) 11:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "She's shining bright". The Hindu; Chennai. 27 October 2023 – via Proquest.
  2. ^ Sivapriyan, ETB (2 September 2023). "Meet Nigar Shaji, Aditya L1 project director from Tamil Nadu". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 4 September 2023.
  3. ^ Kumar, Chethan (5 May 2022). "Aim is to find unique outcome from Venus mission". The Times of India; New Delhi – via Proquest.
Keep. She has received quite a large coverage in a number of reliable mainstream newspapers in India and also part of many news/feature on TV channels. She definitely passes the notability criteria. thanks Davidindia ( talk) 10:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel ( talk) 10:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Kamran Imanov

Kamran Imanov (  | 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)

Run of the mill bureaucrat. Does not meet notability standards. Thenightaway ( talk) 11:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • As best I can tell, they're all Azerbaijan government websites. Thenightaway ( talk) 13:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
they’re all primary and routine announcements of appointments and end of posts. No in depth third party coverage. Mccapra ( talk) 18:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. Daniel ( talk) 10:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

2025 Gulfport mayoral election

2025 Gulfport mayoral election (  | 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)

WP:TOOSOON and has no sources. Previously moved to Draft:2025 Gulfport mayoral election Draft:2025 Gulfport Mayoral Election twice for having no sources. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 10:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Mississippi. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 10:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Mayoral elections, especially mayoral elections in small-to-midsize cities, do not need articles this far in advance of the campaign. And even with national or state level elections that do get articles in advance, that's because they have sourcing this far in advance, which this doesn't. Bearcat ( talk) 14:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify -- The lack of secondary sourcing (or, in fact, any sources whatsoever) precludes a mainspace article. I do not agree with the WP:TOOSOON statement; elections are explicitly mentioned as a future event that can be encyclopaedic, but the nominator is absolutely correct that they an only exist with WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Without that, this simply cannot be in the mainspace. The editor should keep this in draftsapce until at least three reliable, secondary sources (not primary governmental or WP:PRIMARYNEWS) develop. Note to closer: If draftify is not an accepted consensus, please consider the preceding as my reasons for deletion instead. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 17:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify per other users. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 20:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Darshan_Singh_Sur

AfDs for this article:
Darshan_Singh_Sur (  | 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 does not passes notability as I have tried to do copy editing and referencing it but did not saw any prominent articles and the cited article too does not talks dominantly of him unlike given in the article. Yamantakks ( talk) 08:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Madhuchhanda Sengupta

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

The subject of this article "may" not meet the guidelines for notability.I can't find any sources. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Irreligion in Yemen. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Secularism in Yemen

Secularism in Yemen (  | 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 page is more or less unsourced. The available citations do not discuss "Secularism in Yemen" either. Dympies ( talk) 08:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree, this was a poor early article attempt. The page should be put up for speedy deletion. Tony24644 ( talk) 15:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Tony24644, was this written with ChatGPT? Curbon7 ( talk) 22:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte ( talk) 17:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Singerband

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

SubTile

SubTile (  | 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)

Zero independent and reliable sources covering this software. The article was probably created by the software's developer, judging by nickname, so there is a conflict of interest.

The article can potentially fall under WP:A11 or WP:G11 section for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure. Deltaspace42 ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Sense of Purpose

Sense of Purpose (  | 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)

Cites no sources, fails WP:BAND DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 07:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Unable to find any coverage. Article cites no sources, the only outside links are to a Myspace page (seriously?) and a dead website, and I'm unable to find any others than a Bandcamp page (primary source so not reliable). Doesn't meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG as per nomination. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk) 18:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Rob E. Gregory Jr.

Rob E. Gregory Jr. (  | 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 and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. 4/6 souces are obits, the other two are routine mill business news. There is history on the author's talk page [31] to eval. //  Timothy ::  talk  06:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Dumitru Radu

Dumitru Radu (  | 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)

Short career on Moldova's first tier of football, no indication of meeting WP:SPORTCRIT. Dumitru Radu is a quite common name in Romanian. Geschichte ( talk) 06:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Răzvan Radu

Răzvan Radu (  | 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)

Romanian futsal with unverifiable length of career, effectively unsourced and with no indication of meeting WP:SPORTCRIT. Common name in Romanian, among others belonging to a footballer born in the same year. Geschichte ( talk) 06:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to List of tallest buildings in Kerala. Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

List of tallest buildings in Kozhikode

List of tallest buildings in Kozhikode (  | 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)

Oddly promo listspam. Fails NLIST, BEFORE found nothing discussing this as a group and no sources show this area is notable for tall buildings. None of the tallest buildings have articles, only one has a source. Upcoming projects again no links to articles, so this serves no purpose under CLN.  //  Timothy ::  talk  06:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Ansh Gupta

Ansh Gupta (  | 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)

Poorly sourced BLP on an Indian men's footballer who played six pro games a pair of years ago and disappeared. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this interview, which has maybe four sentences of independent coverage. Everything else is trivial mentions ( 1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 05:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. under G5 and G11 by Ivanvector. (non-admin closure) – DreamRimmer ( talk) 15:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Gaurishankaar Chaubey

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. All of the sources are paid brand posts. This was previously created under the title Gaurishankar Chaubey and deleted under A7 and G5. I also want to note that this is likely a UPE/COI creation. – DreamRimmer ( talk) 05:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - per nom, also failed Wikipedia general notability guideline. Youknowwhoistheman ( talk) 10:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Obviously promotional page which likely could be speedied; however, a check user should confirm this which would make it G5 eligible. Would also recommend salting for evasiveness and persistence of the sock farm involved. Won't be surprised when the IPs and SPAs start leaving keep !votes below. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. While there is a general consensus toward the treatment of eldest.... there is no consensus in this particular discussion as to whether Ceccarelli meets the guidelines for her own pa ge. Star Mississippi 01:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Edith Ceccarelli

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

There is no evidence that this articles meets the general notability guideline. Interstellarity ( talk) 15:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I translated the article from German seeing it as describing the oldest living American and second oldest person in the world. I think the article is notable. Moondragon21 ( talk) 18:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning keep. If she was 2% older, this would be kept without question. As it stands, the question is, how old is old enough, and in this context being the demonstrable second-oldest living person on the planet is probably sufficient. BD2412 T 18:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is clearly significant coverage in reliable sources, as demonstrated by the citations to the Ukiah Daily Journal and Los Angeles Times, which both cover the subject in detail as the main focus of their articles. Type her name into any search engine and you'll see there are plenty of sources that cover Ceccarelli. To say there's "no evidence" it meets GNG is just plainly false. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 16:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOPAGE. No encyclopedic content in this article that is not already present in the appropriate lists. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 01:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    It seems odd that you would oppose Edie having a separate Wiki page considering she's listed on the Wiki "Oldest Verified People", which is a page you are heavily involved in. GermanShepherd1983 ( talk) 02:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Nothing odd about this at all. I've followed Longevity articles for a very long time, and for most of that have been trying to keep the fanfluff to a minimum. That includes numerous Afd's for articles about people who are insufficiently notable and/or do not have enough encyclopedic content to merit a stand-alone article, such as this one. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 18:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Maybe we should nominate "List of Verified Old People" for deletion as well. Seems to be all fluff, and it seems that a bunch of people that we supposedly "verified" were recently removed because they weren't in fact "verified", so the site lacks credibility. It appears you have an agenda to get Edie removed. It's not like her wiki page is causing any problems and some people enjoy reading about these super old people. GermanShepherd1983 ( talk) 16:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
@GermanShepherd1983, Maybe you should join the 110 Club https://the110club.com/. There's a plethora of unencyclopedic-fanfluff content to keep you happy there. Meanwhile, more cultivated readers can enjoy real Wikipedia articles about individuals who actually merit their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:293E:3400:2757:C2C7:6ACD:F4B ( talk) 18:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
This is Wikipedia, not the library of congress. People come here to read interesting articles and find out interesting things, or to find out one specific piece of information. Edith is currently the oldest currently living American, which is somewhat notable, and the exact question that I had searched that led me to her page. There are articles on this site with far, far less encyclopedic information than her page. There are some pages for members of state legislatures that simply state the person was a part of the state legislature and then died at some point in time, at least her page has something more interesting than "State Senator in Maine, died in 1982". 35.40.40.13 ( talk) 23:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply
@ GermanShepherd1983 You had a clear point at first but WP:NOHARM is no reason to keep an article N1TH Music ( talk) 14:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notability given as she is the oldest living person from the United States and the second-oldest living person in general. She has also gotten significant coverage from the media. And eight other Wikipedias also have an article about her (this includes the German, Russian and Italian Wikipedia). SouthParkFan2006 ( talk) 10:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable for the reasons stated above. Of course, the article could clearly be improved with additional facts and references, but does not warrant deletion. Baldwin de Toeni ( talk) 13:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Being the oldest living person in the United States at some point in time is notable. Nine hundred ninety-nine ( talk) 01:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: She's the oldest person in the US and the second oldest living person in the world. No reason to delete. GermanShepherd1983 ( talk) 03:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as she is the oldest living person in the U.S.. Article could use some more sources though. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 16:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of American supercentenarians, where she is listed. Being the oldest person in X does not establish notability per WP:N, only substantial reliable coverage in sources does, and accordingly the above "keep" opinions should be discounted as at odds with community consensus. See also WP:AFDP#Oldest people, which notes: "Articles about people known only for being the oldest person in a country, etc., at any given time are normally redirected or merged to a list of oldest people.". Sandstein 14:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    "In most cases" most is not all especially when this one has more media coverage then your normal SC Wwew345t ( talk) 17:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sandstein is correct that I do have to discount a number of keep !votes that don't make arguments rooted in our policies and guidelines. That said, we have some editors claiming the GNG is met and some claiming it isn't: further comments addressing that question may bring us closer to consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete GNG seems to be met, but I'm still not sure she's notable just for being old. The article doesn't even say much, she got married, has children and danced until she was 114. WP:ANYBIO, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field;[8] or The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary", I'm not sure she's any of those things. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    By the criteria listed there are many, many pages on Wikipedia that warrant deletion which aren't being discussed at all. 35.40.40.13 ( talk) 00:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. KangarooGymnast ( talk) 00:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    When they get nominated, and they should, they will be discussed and potentially deleted. 2A02:8388:293E:3400:1A05:2704:B5C8:99FC ( talk) 07:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    So what's the point of deleting because she's "not old enough" in your opinion only to have to add her back when she does finally get "old enough". GermanShepherd1983 ( talk) 15:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete The article itself passes WP:GNG, but I don't see why she's notable and deserves an article purely because she was fortunate enough to get to the age of 115. Per Oaktree b, she doesn't meet any of the criterion of WP:ANYBIO, so I'm leaning towards deletion based on his reasoning. KangarooGymnast ( talk) 07:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Sandstein above, the keep !votes are invalid as contrary to agreed policy, and the delete !votes ignore the existing listing in the named list article. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The policy may be a thing everyone agreed to, but the discussion persists if this article meets the policy or not, because it's unclear. As Extraordinary Writ stated "Sandstein is correct that I do have to discount a number of keep !votes that don't make arguments rooted in our policies and guidelines. That said, we have some editors claiming the GNG is met and some claiming it isn't: further comments addressing that question may bring us closer to consensus."
And I'm pretty sure every person who voted delete would agree with the page serving as a redirect. SouthParkFan2006 ( talk) 18:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of American supercentenarians, per Sandstein. A stand-alone page appears not to be warranted, based on WP:AFDP#Oldest people, but I feel being the oldest American is notable enough to possibly warrant including a bio of her on the "American Supercentenarian" page. Wiki O'Ryan ( talk) 00:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Her notability is based on age, unless an objective criterion is established (a minimum age), it passes through WP:GNG. Svartner ( talk) 02:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Delete - Age is obviously not the sole criteria for meriting a page. She has done nothing of significance apart from having lived an extremely long life. Being the oldest in any particular country is also not significant enough to deserve a page. Should she become the oldest in the world, obviously press coverage will increase and a mini bio or even restoration of this page may be warranted. 2A02:8388:293E:3400:1A05:2704:B5C8:99FC ( talk) 09:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: per significant coverage in WP:RS. Sources 2 (The Ukiah Daily) and sources 3 and 4 (Los Angeles Times) count as secondary sources. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 04:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as it is very divided. I'm not sure what to make of the comment that GNG has been met but the article should still be deleted. Notability is what we go by in evaluating articles in AFDs. Also, the comment that "Delete" voters would be okay with a Redirect closure is, as far as I can see, speculation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of American supercentenarians. Oldest person or oldest man seems to be a reliable measure for notability on supercentenarians, but there is not enough expansive coverage for merely oldest in (X) country. Generalissima ( talk) 17:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - for all the reasons listed above. For anyone who wonders why this woman deserves her own article, they might want to peruse Category:American supercentenarians, which so far has 81 articles like this one. — Maile ( talk) 22:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    And yet there are thousands of American supercentenarians that don't have an article... DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 22:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ DerbyCountyinNZ Yes but those don't have not nearly as many sources from GRG, or News organisations with information which isn't covered in the various lists. She seems like an outlier in that regard and also is the oldest living person in the country at the moment, which makes her far more alike to the 81 which do have articles. N1TH Music ( talk) 14:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Most of them weren't the oldest in the Country nor had as much media coverage Wwew345t ( talk) 17:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I understand the point that not all supercentenarians need articles and we need to avoid fancruft within wikipedia but this is clearly an exception. The article obviously needs work and more sourcing however if you search, it is very easy to find, If you check the Gerontology wiki (which I know is unreleiable) and search the references listed there, she appears to have gained traction in the news for almost a decade now, and her life is far more documented than most supercentenarians even many who reached the same age as her. And to add on she is the oldest living person in the USA and the second oldest living and currently placed 29th on the List of the verified oldest people And looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Branyas Morera there seems to be consensus now that the oldest living person is notable, whilst Cecarelli is only second, there is abundant information from reliable sources about her life beyond what is mentioned in various lists, the article just needs to be worked on. Ceccarelli appears to be just as if not more notable than Tekla Juniewicz who survived AFD prior to the change which happened to WP:Peopleoutcomes at the beginning of 2023. N1TH Music ( talk) 14:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep most supercentenarians don't get alot of coverage but this one has even before she became the oldest in her state her birthday was reported locally since she was 108 now she has national coverage as the oldest living person in America if you have this much coverage from many different newspapers that should make you atleast notable enough for a page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwew345t ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. UtherSRG (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Dunneville, California

Dunneville, California (  | 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)

Contested PROD. This is an interesting one: The site is actually a restaurant-bar: [37]; it was once a rural saloon that became informally known as Dunneville because of a local rancher, James Dunne, who was a regular there ( [38]). Later a Dunneville Estates housing development was built nearby (Ref. 2 in the article). So we have a stub article because GNIS somehow picked up an in-joke about an alcoholic farmer who spent his days at a local tavern. Neither restaurants nor housing developments are inherently notable per WP:GEOLAND, and therefore WP:GNG applies. I would argue this article does not reach that bar, as the few references I can find are about the restaurant and not the "community". This is just a rural intersection with an old bar, a new housing development just to the north, and what looks like a wood chip yard (see satellite image of the coordinates). Not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 00:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 00:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Ironically, following up on that newspaper article tells us that the Dunne ranch is hugely notable. Amusingly, I might also have got there by following up on Viola Dunne via the usual Arcadia Publishing book route. Uncle G ( talk) 10:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Dunne ranch from Rancho Ausaymas y San Felipe
  • Keep - notable historic crossroads and stage station and meeting place in an otherwise rural area; indigenous village in vicinity etc. jengod ( talk) 17:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 00:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • MoveDelete - Dunneville, California clearly never existed, move article to Dunneville Ranch or similar, or merge if such article exists. The bar can become a section of the this newly titled article. The existing article is about a nonnotable, never existing place and WP:GNG is clear that these must be deleted or merged. James.folsom ( talk) 02:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Well-sourced article about a former place on the map. Appears to pass GNG and I don't see any reason to delete this well-written article. SportingFlyer T· C 02:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete It's not clear where the name really comes from but it's reasonably clear that there was no settlement here by this or another name. If there is felt to be a need to have an article on the ranch, it can be created on its own. Mangoe ( talk) 05:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: per article improvement. WP:PRIMARY may still be an issue. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 05:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It's hard to see any consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - There has been a great deal of improvements since this article was nominated. It's been turned into a fairly substantive sourced article now. Nothing like it was when this nomination started. Looks really good now. — Maile ( talk) 03:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Marty, California

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

No indication this was a notable settlement, 1907 map has nothing but a name next to the railroad https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=1c6fd750f09a49579337f04f012ceff1 Reywas92 Talk 20:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 00:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Move, I think this is another good opportunity for good. Move the article to new name appropriate for the Marty's or their ranch and this place then becomes mentioned there. While this would be more work, it's preferable to just deleting. In any case this is a train station in yolo county, it is not a city in yolo county. QED the title/url location is misleading. So at minimum it needs a name change or deletion. I support either. Because if anybody ever creates the article on the Marty's, then the train station will likely be mentioned anyway. James.folsom ( talk) 03:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per nomination. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 23:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you seek this article to be moved, redirected or merged, you have to specify the target article or your proposal will have much less weight. Closers shouldn't be guessing what you want.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Uncle G has accurately stated what this location actually was -- a railway whistle stop. In its description of the Marty ranch, History of Yolo County, California says: shipping facilities are provided by the Marty station on the new Sacramento and Woodland electric railroad, a switch on the ranch affording direct communcation 1. The brevity of the current article doesn't really give anyone a leg up on writing an article about Antone Marty, so I don't think a move is appropriate. Jfire ( talk) 05:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Nothing to indicate this was ever any sort of "settlement"; this was the name for a railway whistle stop for a nearby farm, not a "settlement" of any kind per User:Uncle G. Does not meet WP:GEOLAND. Streetlampguy301 ( talk) 22:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ due to a lack of participation. Can be re-nominated at AfD immediately if so desired. Daniel ( talk) 00:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Kattankudy Central College

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

Non-notable school. PROD declined in 2012 but guideline changed in 2017, see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Web search only brings up Facebook & other social media. – Fayenatic London 14:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

●Comment- Ok so i found this, it is most definitely significant coverage but the problem is it is a blog which makes it unreliable and most likely a primary source. If this much can be written there must be reliable sources out there somewhere, the problem is finding them. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk) 16:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Also Found this which I believe shows that the college is notable. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk) 18:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Found this too. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk) 18:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Found this. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk) 18:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
●Keep- I got 3 results from Google Books, 4 direct mentions in Google Scholar, 2 results from Google News, & 4 reliable Results from a basic Google Search. Due to this school opening in Jan 1930 most news article about this school are going to be found offline. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk) 18:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 00:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 02:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel ( talk) 00:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Sand Springs, Apache County, Arizona

Sand Springs, Apache County, Arizona (  | 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 non-notable GNIS stub. I could not find coverage for it on Google and Google News Archive.

Also comes with a complimentary bit of WP:OR:

It is one of two locations in Arizona with this name, the other being located in Coconino County.

बिनोद थारू ( talk) 01:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete I too cannot find any mention of the populated place on Google Maps. The closest I get is Sand Springs Drive, which is only a road, not a populated place. Thanks, Wikieditor019 ( Talk to me) 17:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel ( talk) 00:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Puertocito, Arizona

Puertocito, Arizona (  | 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 mass-created GNIS stub. Google search and Google Newspaper Archive searches turned empty. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 01:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 01:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Clearly non-notable; only sources are GNIS and a site that mirrors GNIS, possibly also fails WP:V as no information could be found. Satellite view of coordinates shows empty desert with a road maybe a mile to the west. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 02:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Literally nothing on satellite besides desert and such for miles in almost any direction. Definitely not a "populated place". Typical WP:GNIS fail. Streetlampguy301 ( talk) 03:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Another Wikipedia lie. The GNIS never said that this was a populated place in the first place. The feature code was "locale", not "ppl". Yet this article said "populated place" in its first revision. Given the proximity of the letter "P" of "Puertocito Wash" (the head end of the Altar Wash) on some maps, I suspect yet another GNIS comedy of errors that got the a separate "locale" in addition to the record for the Wash itself. Certainly there's no Puertocito nor Puertecito in any Pima history that I can find. Uncle G ( talk) 03:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I searched the newspaper archives, google, and google scholar. This is not a populated area. There was some survey work done around the area but that doesn't make it notable and the survey work does not note a population. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's a wash, or dry creekbed. Possibly notable under GEOFEAT if there's anything on the wash but unlikely given the other source searches here - I didn't look. SportingFlyer T· C 17:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • DeleteAll that has been said here is true. James.folsom ( talk) 01:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I note the 'merge' !vote right at the bottom, but have elected not to go with that as an ATD as there was significant concern expressed in other delete !votes about the material pretty much entirely being sourced to primary sources. If someone wants to work on a merge here and has the subject matter expertise, please flick me a note on my talk page and I'll undelete and redirect to preserve the history at that point. Daniel ( talk) 00:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Initiation (Theosophy)

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

Article pulling almost exclusively from primary sources (i.e., religious texts); non-notable esoteric equivalent of in-universe or fancruft topic. Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Noting that an article on this subject was deleted as the result of a AfD in 2009. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Spirituality. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No independent sources could be found, I don't believe this meets the criteria for having an article Big Money Threepwood ( talk) 07:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or limited merge? This is all massively overblown and pretty much impossible to read, never mind make any sense of. There are sources but I have no idea whether they convey any notability or support what is being said in the article. If there are any kernels of genuine and validly sourced information here then I guess that they can be merged, if not already covered elsewhere, but the vast bulk of this is incomprehensible cruft and has to go. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 12:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the place for uncritical repetition of pseudoscientific meanderings like this: According to the Ancient Wisdom Teachings, death is merely a transition from one state of consciousness to another. While scientific materialists may deny the legitimacy of this view, physicists have long recognized that energy cannot be destroyed, even if it changes form. It is possible that an encyclopedic article on the topic could be written, but it has yet to be established that one is necessary; the default assumption is that concepts within Theosophy can be covered in the article Theosophy. I believe that WP:TNT applies: even if a stand-alone article can be justified, one would have to start over from scratch to write it. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (I was planning to nominate this myself). I couldn't find any academic sources specifically about this topic. We generally don't have articles about initiation into religious/spiritual groups anyway. The current article is almost entirely based on primary sources. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing to suggest the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. If it were, WP:TNT would be advisable. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per lack of reliable sources. There are 6 or so other Theosophy articles that are similar to this one with no independent sources that may need deleting. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 22:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No secondary sources. The article has over 100 citations to theosophists Charles Webster Leadbeater, Alice Bailey, and Benjamin Creme. If secondary sources exist to write the article, it likely would need to be done from scratch without content like, "Sanat Kumara's "consciousness is of so extended a nature that it comprehends at once all the life on our globe. In his hands are the powers of cyclic destruction, for he wields Fohat (i.e. beams composed of "bubbles in space" used by Theosophical deities to materialize or dematerialize material objects) in its higher forms and can deal directly with cosmic forces outside our chain (i.e., outside our solar system)." Beings at this level demonstrate: 1) omniscience regarding events occurring on any singular planet; 2) the capacity to materialize objects; and 3) the ability to affect at a distance happenings in other nearby planetary systems." Rjjiii ( talk) 01:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge material supported by reliable sources to Religious initiation rites, which also covers Thelema and Wicca. Not sure why Theosophy isn't also mentioned there. Skyerise ( talk) 11:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_December_31&oldid=1194307119"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 30 January 01 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Romani people in Sweden

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

I am proposing a blank-and-redirect of these two articles to Norwegian and Swedish Travellers. Both articles are clear content forks of this much longer and more comprehensive article on the broader ethnic group. Both articles were previously redirects until they were both turned into stubs ( Sweden, Norway). Dan • ✉ 23:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply


The article can expanded from the Swedish article

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_i_Sverige — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.192.81.61 ( talk) 00:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. Romani people are a recognize minority in Sweden:

https://www.informationsverige.se/en/om-sverige/individens-rattigheter-och-skyldigheter/rattigheter-for-nationella-minoriteter-och-urfolk.html#:~:text=There%20are%20five%20recognised%20historical,language%2C%20culture%2C%20and%20history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.192.81.61 ( talk) 00:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Norwegian and Swedish Travellers are just a subgroup. It doesn't talk about Romani people and Romani history in those countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.192.81.61 ( talk) 00:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I disagree with the characterisation of this article as merely a content fork. While Norwegian and Swedish Travellers is the more ambitious article, Romani people in Sweden has a different – in some ways much broader – scope. Speaking from the Swedish perspective, the Norwegian and Swedish Travellers are a specific group who have lived in Sweden for hundreds of years. Romani people in Sweden covers all Romani, including many who have immigrated to Sweden in the last century and who aren't part of the Norwegian and Swedish Travellers. Information about the latter doesn't fit into the Norwegian and Swedish Travellers article. / Julle ( talk) 12:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per arguments above. -- Artene50 ( talk) 23:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the above explanations, this is an overlapping article with Swedish Travellers not a redundant fork. Eluchil404 ( talk) 08:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Rel (DBMS)

Rel (DBMS) (  | 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 software. Two of the sources are simply about the relational model this product aims to implement, with no mention of the product itself. The third source is a non-independent promotional page. The website gives no indication that it's widely used, and the code has fewer than 100 stars on Github. Ghosts of Europa ( talk) 21:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

European Party for Individual Liberty

European Party for Individual Liberty (  | 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 an obscure European party that doesn't appear to have representation at any level, made up of a number of other small, obscure political parties. Its cited sources are its own Facebook page (which has been inactive since 2019) and an archived article on the website of one of its constituent parties. I have found no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, so it doesn't appear to meet our general notability guidelines. As such, I propose the article's deletion. Grnrchst ( talk) 21:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Indian Wireless Telegraph Rules

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

No assertion or evidence of notability Orange Mike | Talk 22:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Law, Technology, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Insignificant stub with zero indication of notability. Kerberous ( talk) 12:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. These rules are delegated legislation made under the powers conferred by section 7 of that Act. We normally redirect statutory rules to the Act under which they were made, if the rules are not themselves notable. There is some coverage in Google Books and the Internet Archive. James500 ( talk) 14:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge to the Act as suggested seems fine, I don't see the need to have the rules spelled out otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Herman E. Talmadge Jr.

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

I can't find any sources outside of obituaries or news articles related to the court case. Nothing here shows notability. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 22:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Roces

Roces (  | 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)

Appears to fail WP:ORG. Editor10293813 ( talk) 22:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

YMCA Camp Flaming Arrow

YMCA Camp Flaming Arrow (  | 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)

Appears to be a non-notable subject per WP:ORG. Editor10293813 ( talk) 22:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - It was a big deal in its time and place (San Antonio, Texas area). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, compounded by other problems, the camp closed permanently in 2021. — Maile ( talk) 19:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete As well as the source referenced in the article, I have also found this article from the San Antonio Report about its closure. Two reliable sources, but all they really say about the camp itself is that it existed and that it's closing due to financial issues. The articles really touched me, it seems a real shame for the community to have lost such a valuable resource, but I don't think it passes the "significant" part of the GNG. pinktoebeans (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Very Weak Delete. The other source for the closing looks to be A San Antonio Express News article. I also found a listing in Texas Outdoor Adventure Guide for Kids [1] which looks like fairly substantial coverage to me. A search of newspaper archives found plenty of routine coverage and some more substantial coverage that on closer inspection is YMCA generated content on sponsored pages (i.e. adds disguised as newspaper articles). Very little of the coverage available is both substantial and independent which is a definite shame. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Okaihau Branch. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Cameron's Crossing railway station

Cameron's Crossing railway station (  | 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 little evidence of a station existing by this name. The article has two sources; one of which itself cites Wikipedia and is likely a WP:REFLOOP. The only other source is a line entry in a list of all railway stations in New Zealand by their opening and closing dates. Looking at maps of the line using MapsPast during the era which this source says the station was operational, there is no sign of a station between Kawiti and Ngapipito (the supposed location of Cameron's Crossing per the main Okaihau Branch article).

A substantial online search has also turned up nothing (most results were along the lines of "Cameron's crossing of the..." rather than a place by that name), and a search by Daveosaurus of papers from the time using Papers Past turned up no results for the supposed area of the station (but did find earlier references to a station by that name in Southland, which was renamed as Makarewa Junction and is covered in the article of Makarewa). The WP:PROD was delisted with a suggestion to consider alternatives such as a merge or redirect, but given the station doesn't have any solid evidence of its existence these don't seem like suitable options. Turnagra ( talk) 20:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

That's odd. I did a search of Papers Past and found reference to Cameron's Crossing being located opposite Orauta Native School. Paora ( talk) 21:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Definitely interesting. There is something there and visible on Retrolens https://files.interpret.co.nz/Retrolens/Imagery/SN209/Crown_209_551_57/High.jpg as at 1950 - it could be a 10' x 10' shed, or it could (with some imagination) be a tiny railway station, but it's not named or shown as a station (or even as any building at all) on NZMS 1 as at 1942 https://geodatahub.library.auckland.ac.nz/public/maps/LINZ/NZMS/NZMS_001/jpg/NZMS001_N15_1942.jpg or as at 1965 https://geodatahub.library.auckland.ac.nz/public/maps/LINZ/NZMS/NZMS_001/jpg/NZMS001_N15_1965.jpg . Daveosaurus ( talk) 10:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Turnagra, Cameron's Crossing is still mentioned in Okaihau Branch (closed 28 January 1974). If that is wrong, we should correct it. Even if it is a former station, redirecting to Okaihau Branch is still a viable WP:ATD is it not? ~ Kvng ( talk) 21:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I wanted the AfD discussion to take place first, in case something came out that I missed and it turned out that it actually did exist and we'd need to edit the Okaihau Branch article again. I'm still not entirely convinced that a specific station by this name existed (though I'm less certain after Paora's find), which is why I didn't suggest a redirect instead. Turnagra ( talk) 21:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I'll see what Bruce Hermann's 2007 book North Island branch lines has to say when the libraries reopen on 3 January. Paora ( talk) 22:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don't know Northland well enough to be sure enough to !vote "delete", but I was not able to find any railway station under that name in Papers Past other than an ephemeral station somewhere near Makarewa Junction, Southland, in the 1870s. Daveosaurus ( talk) 10:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: If there's not enough information to prove the station even existed, there's definitely not enough to pass GNG. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge / redirect to Okaihau Branch. There is sufficient evidence that there was a stop called Cameron's Crossing 7 km from the Otiria end of the line, from the railway notice in the Northern Advocate of 22 March 1941, stating that trains on the line would being stopping at Cameron's Crossing, opposite Orauta School, on 24 March 1941. The Orauta School, which closed in 2005, is 7 km along the branch line from Otiria, which tallies with the information in the Okaihau Branch article. However, after reviewing the print sources available at Auckland Central Library about the Okaihau Branch, my conclusion was that, with the possible exceptions of the stations at Otiria, Kaikohe and Okaihau, none of the other stations could be regarded as meeting WP notability criteria, and other than the Northern Advocate advertisement and the references already in the article, I could find no other reference to Cameron's Crossing Station. Paora ( talk) 10:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks Paora - based on this new (old) information, I'm happy with it being kept or redirected depending on the particular notability requirements for train stations. I'm thinking that a redirect may still be the best option, but I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other. Turnagra ( talk) 18:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge to Okaihau Branch. Paora's source checks out and I have added it to Okaihau Branch to support the mention of Cameron's Crossing there. I hope someone with more railway notability experience now chimes in to help us decide whether this merits a stand-alone article or a redirect. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but edit to correct the opening date and add location. The 1941 advert shows it opened on 24 March 1941, rather than on 1 May 1914. It also mentions it was opposite the native school, which is marked on maps past. The Retrolens photo shows it west of Rogers Road, which would place it at about -35.4163 173.935161. Yonge's Railway Atlas shows it 6.88km, rather than 7km. A Facebook post mentions railway houses at the ballast pit. The school jubilee booklet says trains stopped for the school from 1930 and that the school was moved in November 1941. The booklet also has a photo of the Kauri Timber Company line near Lake Kaiwai, which is also marked on the atlas. Johnragla ( talk) 20:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge / redirect to Okaihau Branch. Nowhere near enough info for a standalone article. Nurg ( talk) 07:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • If this article is merged with the branch article, then for consistency, the same should be done for all the other station articles, which have even less information available than this one. Johnragla ( talk) 10:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    I agree. Merge them all. Nurg ( talk) 10:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 21:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

OSRMT (software)

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

Likely non-notable software that doesn't appear to have any significant third-party coverage. Logan Talk Contributions 20:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The article have all necessary sources and references. I think it is meeting all the Wikipedia guidelines. And should remain on Wikipedia. Problem can be fixed But that doesn't mean it should be deleted Mukarram ( talk) 20:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I couldn't find any independent coverage. Fails NSOFT. Owen× ☎ 23:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Non-notable software without any reliable sourcing or significant and/or independent coverage. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 14:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hiber Nation (album)

Hiber Nation (album) (  | 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 and NALBUM. Nothing found from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  //  Timothy ::  talk  20:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 21:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

KoiKoi Nelligan

AfDs for this article:
KoiKoi Nelligan (  | 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)

My views since the first AfD remain the same. The subject fails WP:GNG and there has been no increase in coverage since the first nomination. None of the sourcing in the article suggests significant coverage also. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 19:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Quentin Newcomer

AfDs for this article:
Quentin Newcomer (  | 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)

My views since the first Afd remain the same. Fails WP:GNG and there has been no increase in coverage since the first AfD. None of the sourcing in the article suggests significant coverage either. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 19:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Brady Daniel

AfDs for this article:
Brady Daniel (  | 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)

My views since the first Afd remain the same, still fails WP:GNG and there has been no increase in coverage since the first AfD. None of the sources in the article suggest significant coverage either Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 19:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

1993–2016 military reforms in Azerbaijan

1993–2016 military reforms in Azerbaijan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article advances the thesis that Azerbaijan reformed its military during the period 1993-2016. There is no independent reliable sourcing to substantiate that. Furthermore, most of the article is poorly written, poorly sourced text that doesn't touch on the supposed reforms. If there is ant content worth keeping, it can be merged with articles on Azerbaijan's military. Thenightaway ( talk) 19:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with seasoning Star Mississippi 20:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Orkhan Mammadov

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

This article was deleted in 2022 for failing meet notability requirements. It was subsequently recreated and it still fails notability requirements. There is no independent reliable sourcing of the subject. All the sourcing is by Azerbaijani government outlets. The subject heads the Small and Medium Business Development Agency (Azerbaijan) which is not a notable entity either (it's one of countless state initiatives created by the authoritarian regime in Azerbaijan). Thenightaway ( talk) 18:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and SALT - what has changed since the last AFD? Giant Snowman 13:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Still sourced to government press releases, nothing otherwise about this person. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not meet GNG. -- DonCalo ( talk) 21:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:NOP from my prospective. I don't know why you would want to SALT a government officials name. I've seen far worse off articles on American representation get kept for less. I don't believe Azerbaijan sources have really been looked into. :/ Govvy ( talk) 16:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Govvy, did you mean to link NPOL? Where are you seeing that he would meet that? JoelleJay ( talk) 21:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ JoelleJay: Yep, I meant to link to WP:NPOL, but alas, I find it odd behaviour at AfD by the delete voters, there are citations on the article, but has anyone actually analysed them? From what I see, not all the sources are government branches or press releases. I don't know about the independency of the sources, but I see a bit of a mix of primary and secondary. But at the end of the day, and often enough no one really looks at what a source is doing. From my prospective, a source is about verifying the text on the article, is the text correct? Is the content right? Is the content source? From that prospective, it all looks correct to me. So what do the deletionists want? I don't understand whats wrong here. I don't get the argument for a deletion. Govvy ( talk) 13:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    But...what makes him meet NPOL? And you know articles need to meet much more than just V to exist... JoelleJay ( talk) 18:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - all citations are mentions or not independent, so there is no proper coverage. Royal88888 ( talk) 07:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Pestom sagar

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

No indication of notability for this specific neighborhood/residential place (and no sources given). ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 19:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. More participation here would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Agree with nom. I'm just getting real estate listings when searching - nothing that motivates a really deep source check. -- asilvering ( talk) 02:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

ANYbotics

ANYbotics (  | 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 NCORP. Sources I could find are either trade publications or routine coverage of funding. Only RSes I could find are a couple of articles in CNBC. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 18:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be nice to get a second opinion on these sources that have been found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Tilmaneee ( talk) 19:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Libertarian Party (Spain)

Libertarian Party (Spain) (  | 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 an obscure Spanish micro-party that has barely managed to pull together 0.01% of the vote in general elections. The only source cited in this article is the party's own FAQ section on its website. Searching around, I can't find any reliable secondary sources that have given the party significant coverage. The Spanish Wikipedia article es:Partido Libertario (España) was also deleted this year as having no relevance to the encyclopedia. As this organisation appears to fail our general notability guidelines I propose this article be deleted. Grnrchst ( talk) 18:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The Wumpus Search Engine

The Wumpus Search Engine (  | 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)

Certainly fails WP:GNG; sources found are ether written by an affiliated person (thus not independent) or brief mentions. Toadette ( Merry Christmas, and a happy new year) 18:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Top of the Town (brothel)

Top of the Town (brothel) (  | 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 fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. There are six sources on the page, which include papers of record, so these are WP:RS but per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, the articles cited are primary sources, and primary sources do not count towards notability. What has not been established is any reason why this brothel is notable and the subject of significant secondary coverage, and not just another brothel. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 13:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Australia. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 13:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Articles like Childs, Kevin (21 June 1991), "Birthday brothel celebrates legality", The Age and Barrowclough, Nikki (29 June 1991), "$ex inc", Good Weekend (The Age) are more than just news and the latter mentions a review in a Japanese magazine Themis. Ormonde, Tom (13 July 1990), "Japanese lust after city's new image", The Age is about that review. duffbeerforme ( talk) 06:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for these. Childs (1991) writes about the first birthday of legality. This falls squarely in primary source territory. It mentions a new promotions manager, and that must raise some questions about independence. But yes, definitely a primary source. Barrowclough (1991) writes an editorial 8 days after the newspaper ran an article mentioning the new promotions manager. Again, there might be questions about independence here, but the piece remains a primary source. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Do you have a link for (Ormonde, 1990) so I can take a look at that one?
    The real question is still: what makes this brothel actually notable? What is the encyclopaedic article on the subject meant to be about? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Keep I think Sirfurboy🏄 is putting undue emphasis on the primary news issue, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Its written about (and notable) because it's a large, long-standing and well-known place in a highly prominent position on one of Melbourne's main streets, which is also pretty unusual. Boneymau ( talk) 00:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply
      PRIMARYNOTBAD is saying that primary sources can be useful in an article when used appropriately. The point here is not that we cannot use a primary source, but that they do not count towards demonstrating notability. The relevant guideline is WP:SIRS. This says:

      Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.
      ...
      4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

      Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 11:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nomination, which I find convincing. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 05:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    The nomination is advocating delete. LibStar ( talk) 06:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply
You are right, I have changed my vote to reflect what I mean. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 01:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete most of the sources are not indepth coverage of the brothel and fail WP:SIGCOV eg stories on sex workers. The first sentence is refbombed with 5 sources. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk) 10:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for further input regarding whether the sources meet SIGCOV so a consensus can form either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 18:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Dhiman

Dhiman (  | 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 content within this article lacks verifiability, neutrality, and contains original research. The article is authored by a contributor( User:Karandhimanbahre) with a potential conflict of interest(see his other contributions/talk page) with not enough citations/reliable sources.

I believe the article does not meet Wikipedia standards. It lacks inline citations, and the information about the notable individuals(removed now) [21] and companies appear to be without proper verifiable sources.

Moreover, the article is in a state where cleanup or rewriting would require an extensive effort due to its lack of verifiability and biased presentation. Starting this AfD to either delete, fix or draftify this article. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 18:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Literature, Ethnic groups, History, and India. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 18:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- The article is in sad shape, but deletion is not for cleanup. I do not find any blatant WP:OR or WP:SYNTH issues; existing sources pass WP:GNG easily; and additional sources exist based on basic WP:BEFORE searches. I am confused by the WP:NPOV and WP:V complaints in the nom. Other than the fact that the cites are all at the bottom of the article instead of inline, the sources seem to support the article text. I am also disturbed by the accusation of WP:COI in the nom. I think that should be stricken unless the nominator can support how one or more of the authors contributing to the article have a financial stake in the subject of a caste (without outing or doxing that editor). If the COI argument is specific to one or more entries in the Current Accomplishments section, that (again) is a matter of cleanup, not an argument for deletion. Overall, I see no valid policy reasons to delete the article, and I feel that deletion will not improve the encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 12:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    My suggestion is to blow it up and start over. With regards to WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:V, the author/major contributor User:Karandhimanbahre, has 44 edits in total. [22]. Subject has 79.9% content from the user:Karandhimanbahre.

    The name Karandhimanbahre and their userpage clearly indicates they are from the Dhiman subset. Also has a previous COI warning from submitting this article initially [23] and tried to create Jatinder Dhiman recently. Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. My COI argument is not because of the entries in the Current Accomplishments section but from WP:EXTERNALREL.

    It's widely known that upper-caste Indians often proudly display their caste identity, carrying it with them wherever they go. Ex: Karandhimanbahre's user page. Now to clarify WP:OR, Is there any source for the notable names and companies mentioned on the article actually belongs to the Dhiman subset? No.
    In the Culture section, Dhimans are group of people, who took Engineering and Technology works as an occupation. and The community is moving very highly in society in both business and education. I believe there was no term called technology those days and the 2nd quote is not NPOV. Similarly in Current Accomplishments, Today, we can see people from Dhimans group leading in many sectors. From business, art, and science to politics, people from this group are showcasing strong accomplishments.

    "Dhiman-Brahmin are on-par with the Brahmins in the current time, whereas until the early 1500s they were above the rest of Brahmins in the social hierarchy." looks like it has been rephrased from Panchal, This is enough for this editor to be not anywhere near this article. Looks like the whole section Dhiman is copied from Panchal. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 14:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see similarities between Dhiman and Panchal—almost identical from section to section with only some words replaced. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 14:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Superb analysis and explanation, Jeraxmoira. Thank you! I am still deeply uncomfortable with using COI outside PROMO issues, but I know that caste is a special case for many policies and guidelines. I'm concerned that allowing the idea to creep too far would mean excluding Brits from articles about UK culture and history, or blocking LGBTQIA2S+ from articles about gay and transgender topics. That said, editorial bias of any kind damages the encyclopaedia, so removing it is a good idea. On balance, though, is it reasonable for an entire article about a caste to be scrapped due to COI issues of a single editor? That worries me.
As I said above, I think that the subject passes GNG and is worthy of an encyclopaedic article. I do agree with the callouts above as examples of puffery or likely POV issues that need to be excised, but I just can't see the article as a whole being TNTed for it. Do you really think that there is literally nothing in the article that can be salvaged? That seems... harsh. I think a stronger approach would be to keep the article and ruthlessly, sentence by sentence, strip out everything that cannot be directly supported by RS. The citations in the article and the additional ones readily available on gScholar or gBooks should give us a strong starting point for a better article. In short, I think this is still a Keep and that the discussion should move to WP:BRD and the Talk page. I am quite willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I'm not seeing a good reason (yet). Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 15:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I get what you're saying about COI and the need to salvage articles, but this cannot be compared to your examples as here it is proven that the major contributor has a COI with the article. First off, the article was created in May 2023 and is not a long standing one. From the page history, the only significant contributor is the author himself. Secondly, most parts are copied from Panchal as I have mentioned in my previous reply. And I don't think WP:BRD is of any use here as everything in this article can be removed because of no inline citations. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. In this case, the article would end up empty, which is why I initiated this AFD.
FWIW, if you believe the current sources meet GNG (even though many might fall under WP:RAJ and therefore are not reliable), then the article should be draftified until someone completely rewrites it. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 17:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify at minimum. AFD may not be cleanup but this is an article that does not have any inline citations that falls directly under the purview of ongoing general sanctions. This cannot be acceptable for mainspace. microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish· growths) 20:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or draftify at the very least. Article is inherently flawed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is a very strong WP:TNT case. When we're dealing with an article that has no inline sources, is completely disputed, and is on a topic that falls under disciplinary sanctions... sometimes AfD does actually have to be cleanup. -- asilvering ( talk) 03:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or otherwise remove from mainspace. This is unlikely to be suitable as a base to write a properly sourced article. Most of the cited sources are not really reliable for the topic presented, i.e. Hindu scritptures, colonial era ethnography, mentions of actors with a particular last name, or don't support the content of the article (e.g. the government reports about the Tarkhan (Punjab) caste that only mentions Dhiman as a synonym of that group. In short it needs new content based on new sources to be a viable article and thus is a reasonable candidate for WP:TNT. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Jorge Planas Ribó

Jorge Planas Ribó (  | 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)

Unambiguous WP:RESUME, sourced to the subjects CV and a single editorial. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to The June Junes. Daniel ( talk) 07:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Jacbern

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to The June Junes, as above. Seems like a credible WP:ATD "at this time", although I can't say I am too sure about the long term viability of the target article either. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Meredith Badger

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 23:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. I have looked for book reviews on Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, and Booklist, as well as a general Google and Google Scholar search, but haven't found any reviews for her books -- nor any other reliable, independent sources that discuss the author. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 16:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator: Thank you, Bridget, for pointing out the pseudonym! I somehow missed that when I nominated for AFD. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 23:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Namsangol Hanok Village. Given the lack of RS, there's nothing to merge. History is preserved should sourcing come to fruition Star Mississippi 20:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Namsan Traditional Theater

Namsan Traditional Theater (  | 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)

Possibly not separately notable enough, even if there are some mentions of it. Possibly merge into Namsangol Hanok Village, but this artilce is not so substantial imo that we need to have an outstanding merge waiting for someone willing to do it (I'm not willing to). I think a delete is ok toobigtokale ( talk) 16:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rendering withdrawal with extent delete !vote moot Star Mississippi 20:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Paul Ford (technologist)

Paul Ford (technologist) (  | 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)

None of the sources given are 3P. Additionally, I'm having a bit of trouble finding 3P sources about this individual, seems non-notable. Sohom ( talk) 16:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Chad–Spain relations

Chad–Spain 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)

Another bilateral article almost entirely based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and not subject to third party coverage. No embassies, no state visits in over 40 years of relations. Most of the cooperation happens in multilateral contexts. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk) 15:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Spain. LibStar ( talk) 15:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Yet another example of a standalone article being created for every combination of two nations, no matter how insignificant their connexion may be. The subject is not encyclopaedic, the sources presented are all WP:PRIMARY (government press), and there is no secondary analysis, depth or other indication of notability. I can find no scholarly treatment of this relationship nor mentions in reputable journals. Merging to one or both countries' articles might be possible, but I can find no info particularly worth merging and no sourcing on which to base such a merge. Redir begs the question of which country to redirect towards (and do we really expect this as a search string?). Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 13:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No indication of meeting WP:N. Let'srun ( talk) 22:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Elkhan Mammadov (football official)

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

The subject's main claim to notability appears to be that they held the third most senior position in the Azerbaijan football federation (general secretary). Thenightaway ( talk) 15:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Gambia–Spain relations

Gambia–Spain 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)

Another in the series of Spanish bilateral articles almost entirely based on the Foreign Ministry website. Trade is very low, Spanish aid and investment is non existent as stated in the article. No evidence of state visits or significant migration or cultural interaction. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk) 15:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Spain. LibStar ( talk) 15:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and per dearth of WP:SIGCOV. Yilloslime ( talk) 00:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Yet another example of a standalone article being created for every combination of two nations, no matter how insignificant their connexion may be. The subject is not encyclopaedic, the sources presented are all WP:PRIMARY (government press), and there is no secondary analysis, depth or other indication of notability. I can find no scholarly treatment of this relationship nor mentions in reputable journals. Merging to one or both countries' articles might be possible, but I can find no info particularly worth merging and no sourcing on which to base such a merge. Redir begs the question of which country to redirect towards (and do we really expect this as a search string?). Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 13:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Ghost (operating system)

Ghost (operating system) (  | 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)

Couldn't find reliable secondary sources. QuietCicada - Talk 14:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. QuietCicada - Talk 14:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Unable to find coverage that isn't the project website or github page, doesn't meet WP:GNG. If every hobby OS needed a page we'd be here all week with random articles. Author of the article is the person who made the program, making it a WP:COI issue as well. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk) 18:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I was unable to find any secondary sources referencing the Ghost kernel. Holzklöppel ( talk) 21:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Vusal Gasimli

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

There is little that indicates that the subject meets general notability requirements or academic notability requirements. The subject has not been covered by independent reliable sources. The subject has headed several non-notable government-created research institutions in Azerbaijan. The article, which is written like a resume, was authored by a likely COI account. Thenightaway ( talk) 14:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Also, there are 22 (!) other Azerbaijani AFDs from the same day to participate in.‎ Geschichte ( talk) 16:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Garib Mammadov

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

There is nothing that indicates that the subject is notable. The subject is not a notable academic. The subject heads the State Land and Cartography Committee (Azerbaijan) but it does not appear to be a cabinet-level position in Azerbaijan. The page appears intended to promote the subject. Thenightaway ( talk) 13:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I missed that. I agree that the article should be kept as he meets the notability reqs for a politician. Thenightaway ( talk) 16:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Deputy of the first convocation of the Milli Majlis of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Atakhanli ( talk) 15:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Centre for Social Research (Azerbaijan)

Centre for Social Research (Azerbaijan) (  | 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 organization was created by the Azerbaijan government in 2019 and a Wikipedia page was shortly thereafter created by a likely COI account who is singularly focused on promoting the Azerbaijan government. There is nothing that indicates that this is a notable research institution. Thenightaway ( talk) 13:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Legacy of Roberto Clemente

Legacy of Roberto Clemente (  | 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)

Setting aside no other baseball player (or athlete) has a seperate page for their legacy (since it can easily be fitted into their main articles), majority of this page a list of quotes praising (and some ONLY mentioning) Clemente and a list of books on Clemente which are already cited in the main article. I admire Clemente as much as anyone can but this page is unnecessary and almost certainly violates WP:NPOV since it seems to be made by a fan and WP:POVFORK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnis Scientia ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment There may be policy-based reasons to delete the article, but no other baseball player having a legacy article (there can be a first if enough RS-based content is there), or a fan maybe writing this article (we shouldn't judge motivation per WP:AGF), aren't among them. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 17:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ StefenTower, not judging motive, just that it has little to do with the legacy of Clemente, and most of this stuff is already present on his main page or Wikiquote page. I should clarify: I believe it violates WP:NPOV because it is very one-sided, not because it was made by a Clemente fan. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 17:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, WP:NPOV is a policy you can use here, of course - I wasn't knocking that. Many editors are fans of subjects they write about, and I just don't think that automatically leads to not following policies/guidelines. Also, my comments so far should not be taken as my !vote or discussion on the actual merits of the AfD. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 17:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
@ StefenTower, I'm a baseball fan myself so I completely understand what you're saying but what I meant by a "fan" is that they wrote it like a fan's tribute to Clemente rather than as someone who is interested in baseball. I hope that clears any misunderstanding. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 22:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the page is full of sources (easily meets GNG) and information about this Hall of Fame baseball player and noted humanitarian. Clemente's legacy and work deserves a page such as this, thanks for pointing it out. As for being one-sided, if there are sources listing negative information about Clemente's work and life please add them to the page. That's it's not balanced with negativity doesn't seem a good reason to delete. Randy Kryn ( talk) 10:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Randy Kryn, by balance, I don't mean negativity. The creator of the article basically cut out a lot of material from the main page and the Wikiquote page. This page gives no information on Clemente that isn't already present in the main article or anything new but instead lists positive opinions of his contemporaries with the addition of having lists of books and documentaries. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 12:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Any relevant information on this page is already present on Clemente's main page. It does not discuss his humanitarian work a lot either which, IMO, fits far better on the main page ( Roberto Clemente) given how it was tied to his untimely death. I'm still in favor of deleting. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 12:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the explanation. You may be right, but since legacy pages are allowed on Wikipedia this one likely fits as long as it was created. Where does the encyclopedia draw the line when legacy pages are allowed? Clemente is such a national hero in Puerto Rico that he is likely the islands most famous citizen, and "legacy" probably covers such a prominent connection between the individual and his/her home. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    That is the problem though, @ Randy Kryn. This so-called legacy page does not even discuss his connection with Puerto Rico or his humanitarian work except in passing, nor does it list his significance or achievements, all of which are listed in the main page. It is just a list of quotes and books on Clemente. And I don't see a way of improving it without making it a duplicate of half the main article. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 12:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Randy Kryn, any chance you will change your vote given the lack of information about Clemente in this page? I remind you again that there is already a Category:Roberto Clemente for articles related to Clemente and any relevant information on this page is in " Roberto Clemente" or " Roberto Clemente Award" (and so on). This "legacy" page is nothing more than a list of opinions praising Clemente and books which, again, are already listed and cited on the main article. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 09:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I would much prefer that this article be deleted due to its lack of information on Clemente and the focus be on improving the main article (which needs a lot of improvement) and not this secondary page created from material lifted from " Roberto Clemente" and its sister links. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 09:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Omnis Scientia, if anything on the page had been removed from the main article just to fork it to this one it should certainly be put back. As a stand-alone page I personally like the emphasis on quotes, but as you say, they duplicate Wikiquote material, so it's a question of relying on Wikiquote to fill a gap in Wikipedia article styling. Since someone took the time to organize the page, and it reads interestingly and focused, the elements lacking can be added in. As for the nomination, this will probably be relisted unless other editors chime in. I'm a little surprised others from the Wikiproject Baseball haven't as yet, but the holidays usually are slower for things like this. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Randy Kryn, but that is exactly the problem, you see: literally all the elements you think lack here are already in the main article and in more detail and with reliable sources. It seems you're ignoring that part entirely and focusing too much on the "legacy" part.
I also don't think it reads well or is particularly focused on anything but the opinions of players and coaches about different aspects of Clemente's game or personality. In some cases, the quote is not even about Clemente but mentions him in passing or in reference to another player.
Again: I would MUCH prefer to improve the main article's quality than focus on trying to salvage this mix of quotes which violates WP:POVFORK and WP:NPOV. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 13:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
And, IMO, you should also be in favor of improving the main article which focuses on Clemente's legacy as a player or his player profile to match the format of other HOF players. To cut out info from there just to salvage this page, as you seem to imply, or even copy it from there is just not a good idea. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 13:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Just a thought for you. Because Clemente's page is prone attracting... um... overenthusiastic fans. This page is just the biggest example. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 13:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
No, nothing should be cut from the main article, if you read something I said as implying that then its incorrect. Forks should never harm or remove major data from their parent pages, but many do. When others chime here the page will likely be deleted. My own view is that Wikiquote is fine but it is not Wikipedia, and since someone took the time to put this Clemente page up, and it covers the praise and honors received by someone who deserves focus on his legacy, when asked if it should be kept or deleted I'd personally go with keep (I've been called an ultra-inclusionist as an insult which I take as a compliment, so am probably an outlier regarding your reading of Wikipedia rules and regs. I've read the page over again and do like it). Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Randy Kryn, there are MANY athletes who deserve focus on their legacy and that is always covered sufficiantly on their pages because that is where people tend to read about an athlete more.
And contrary to what you have said a few times, this page does not cover "praise and honors" (as you said) Clemente has received in any way that is relevant. It does not discuss what he has done either because, again, that is already mentioned on the main page which is where people go and look for information on Clemente. And having read the policy on content forks, this one doesn't seem to meet the standards. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a reasonable spin out of the Roberto Clemente article which would be overwhelmed if all of this (reliably sourced) material were included. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Eluchil404, if you don't count the quotes (and I don't since there are no baseball pages with a list of quotes on them - and these are on Clemente's Wikiquote page with more detail/context), what little relevant information present in this page is ALREADY on the main page and in more detail (I have been improving the main article for a while now) so there is no danger of " Roberto Clemente" being overwhelmed.
This page has little to do with Clemente's legacy, in any case. It's basically a list of quotes praising Clemente's skills as a player; a few mention him in reference to other players (should be noted that all of these quotes and references - some are without links, I should add - were lifted from Clemente's wikiquote page). Additionally, a spin-off in NOT required to explain what already comfortably fits on the main article and within the word limit. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 18:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Soft Keep. I see no legitimate reason to delete this article based on 1) whether we've had an article like this before for baseball players (else with that attitude how would the Wikipedia have expanded at all?); 2) having this subarticle distracts from working on the main article; 3) that the article doesn't yet have expected details; or 4) that the article is organized poorly (quote lists). Based on the discussion so far for me, the bottom line is whether this is a subject worthy of its own article and if there is likely enough reliable sources to fill it in. My hunch is that the subject easily meets that criteria. Of course, this article shouldn't steal key material from the main article, but part of the rationale for subarticles is to go into greater detail while allowing the main article to summarize (hit the big points). My vote is to keep for now, and give it a chance to improve. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 19:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ StefenTower. I've given a lot of legitimate reasons. The fact of the matter is that this is an article of little substance with little information; it's just quotes (and references) cherrypicked/stolen from Wikiquote - hence WP:NPOV - and (as I have emphasized many times) any relevant material is already on Clemente's main page in greater detail. And there are already many articles on Clemente which already delve into his legacy in further detail, (all are listed on Template:Roberto Clemente). As I mentioned earlier: this is nothing more than a fan's tribute to Clemente and there is frankly no point or purpose to try and fix it when there are already well-written articles on this very topic. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    I accept you have a heartfelt opinion here, but I don't agree with the apparent exasperation you relay. Again, the bottom line is that the subject is worthy of an article, and I am not going to judge its existence on anyone's assumed motivation of involved editors per WP:AGF. It's not merely fandom that would produce such an article. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 21:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ StefenTower, if I sound exasperated it is because I can't seem to get my point across as to why this article is pointless. And, to clarify, I am not judging the creator of this article for being a Clemente fan. I'm judging the article as being one-sided and created of lifted material from other articles about Clemente. The reliable sources are all from Wikiquote as well; some don't even have links in them.
    I should also note that you undid the speedy deletion of this article as well and long after this page was deleted/redirected to the main article but gave no reason for doing so other that it was "well-sourced" - but that is not why this page was deleted then and it isn't why I nominated it now. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    I undid a Prod, and I didn't have to have a reason for that other than suggesting it should go through a more complete review. Other than that, your reply here seems to be desirous of me doing another round of debate with you. Re-stating things isn't constructive or a best use of time. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 03:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Honestly, I have seen no good reason from anyone voting "keep". That it MIGHT be improved or that it has reliable sources are not good reasons to keep an article and are besides the point: it is that the article A) one-sided and B) pointless because the main page - and several other articles on Clemente - already covers Clemente's legacy and does it better. Hence, there is no point in salvaging this article. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    This seems very close to wikilawyering. That you don't agree with others' reasons doesn't mean they aren't valid. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Summary of my !vote: Likely loads of WP:RS for expansion, worthy subtopic of very notable subject with a tremendous legacy ("Legacy of..." articles being an established thing at WP, to boot), and WP:SOFIXIT. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 07:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: We have articles like Public image of Mother Teresa, Public image of Taylor Swift, and Public image of George W. Bush. I think this could easily be refactored into a Public image of Roberto Clemente page consistent with that series of articles. BD2412 T 02:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    That is certainly a constructive thought, but it seems that "legacy" is inclusive of "public image". Legacy isn't just about what people have said and continue to say about the subject, but what things (e.g. laws and culture) were changed because of the subject. What exists now because Clemente was around? I think about this a lot when working on the article of Muhammad Ali as one hard example. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Also, poking around a bit, I see that articles like Legacy of George Washington and Legacy of Alan Turing exist. It seems within bounds to stay parked where we are. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 03:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Tarun Poddar

AfDs for this article:
Tarun Poddar (  | 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)

Lesser-known Indian entrepreneur already deleted last month, recreated by an editor with 11 edits, still appears to mostly include routine/promotional sources. Suspicion of COI and/or same user creating a new account. (Didn't G4 as I couldn't see the contents of the previous deleted version of the article) ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 12:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 12:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per nomination. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk) 18:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Same as last time, still not notable. Talking to media about what and where your company invests isn't what's needed here. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - And based on the SOCK involvement, would recommend salting. Mainly mentions which do not add up to significant coverage. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 21:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Pretty clear promotional article, backed by blogs, promotional puff pieces and sources that lack significant coverage of the person Ravensfire ( talk) 00:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    All these articles are organic, there are no brand posts in them and there is no disclaimer from which it can be said that the article written is correct, that is why it should not be deleted but improved. Please help me to improve this page. Simmi9090 ( talk) 06:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Sources appear to be paid spam. Fails WP:GNG. Maliner ( talk) 13:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    All sources are organic, please double check. Simmi9090 ( talk) 07:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Just a bunch of UPE promotional jittery, nothing else. G11 might be involved. No significant coverage whatsoever. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 23:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    G5 can be invoked now, although at this point we could potentially let the AfD run its course. ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 00:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I think letting it run would be good. Hopefully get a consensus on salting due to the persistence of the film-related sock farms. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 21:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hidden races (Marvel Comics) which seems to have consensus as a target. HIstory is preserved should consensus emerge for a re-target, which is a matter of editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 20:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Homo mermanus

Homo mermanus (  | 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)

Sources are pretty much only primary; there's no indication this meets Wikipedia notability criteria and is a better fit for FANDOM. I think the most likely result of this AfD would be a redirect to Namor or something of that nature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per nom, sourcing is very weak and PRIMARY, and searching looks no better. Maybe best target is Atlantis (Marvel Comics) which discusses the subject in plenty of detail already. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - There is not a single non-primary source being used in this article, and the entire article is almost completely comprised of in-universe plot information. Searches did not turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources that goes beyond mentions in plot summaries. While Atlantis (Marvel Comics) would be the logical choice for a redirect, I would like to point out that article currently has similar sourcing and notability issues as this one. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge with either Hidden races (Marvel Comics) or Atlantis (Marvel Comics) in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Though some of the Homo mermanus are Lemurians and Lemuria is already a redirected link where it is currently redirected to the Features of the Marvel Universe page. If the outcome is merge, I ask that any Homo mermanus characters that redirect to this page have their information transferred to their respectful List of Marvel Comics characters pages in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 21:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve. As editors have pointed out, it needs some secondary sources, but there must be at least a few that could verify the basics, such as first appearances and at least an outline of the basic in-universe mythology. I don't buy the notion that a franchise this old could have eluded all secondary sources; surely some reviews of Black Panther: Wakanda Forever would mention the cinematic versions of the species, its home, and its chief characteristics, although you might need specialist material about Marvel Comics to verify the print versions. This might need to be researched at a library. But I think it can be done. Note that not every fact needs to be in a secondary source: names and basic descriptions of characters or plot lines can come from primary sources. Clearly a lot of work went into this, and while it's not written in a very encyclopedic manner, that's fixable. It's too big to merge into another article without huge cuts. So let's give subject-matter specialist editors a chance to work on it, now that we've identified some of the major issues with the article. P Aculeius ( talk) 14:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Disregarding for a moment that this argument is entirely a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument, there is a difference between Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability, and it is the latter that is the issue in this case. No one here is doubting that the information is accurate, just that it does not pass the WP:GNG. The subject is mentioned in secondary sources, but none of those mentions are WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, if those mentions are nothing but plot summaries or in-universe fictional descriptions, that does not solve the issue of the subject being able to pass WP:NOTPLOT. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
That's an essay, not a policy—in this case there's a near certainty of reliable sources that the nominator doesn't even claim to have looked for. The work in which this material exists is notable, and the subject here is probably too large to be conveniently folded into another topic. If you're familiar with AfD policy, then you know that articles aren't supposed to be deleted because nobody has added the necessary sources, but because such sources don't exist or can't reasonably be located. A quick Google search that doesn't turn them up doesn't really satisfy that expectation. If the topic is mentioned in secondary sources, then it needs to be explained why that coverage is claimed not to be "significant". The sources don't need to cover the topic in the same depth as this article, and you don't need one source that knits them all together. Works of literature are valid sources for their own contents, even if you think the literary form (comic books) is unworthy of encyclopedic treatment. This article, or at least the first couple of sections, is poorly written, but salvageable, and it is certainly not a "plot summary"; WP:NOTPLOT does not apply. We should treat this article as though it were deserving of a concerted effort at improvement, because it clearly can be improved; we shouldn't dismiss it because we don't find the subject serious enough. P Aculeius ( talk) 19:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't think anyone here is of the mind that comics aren't a "serious" form of media. The main issue here is that citing only comic books is a case of all primary sources (Aka, no significant coverage outside of the fictional universe in question is displayed). As for your sourcing argument, if you want that to be valid, then link to this argument sources that exist out there discussing the Homo mermanus in depth. If coverage exists and can be proven and verified as being significant, then yes, notability is proven. However, you can't really exclaim "Sources exist" and then tell someone to go find them. If you believe the topic is notable, prove to the argument that the sources exist. Show sources that prove the topic is notable. Anyone can say sources exist; it's a different matter entirely proving that the sources do, in fact, exist. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 21:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect and merge relevant information to Hidden races (Marvel Comics). While I can't speak for the notability of that page, it's probably the best redirect target, given how messy this whole page and its potential redirects are. Since most of these characters are one-offs, not much is being lost by dumping the character list, but some of the relevant species info is worthwhile to preserve for the time being. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 22:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect there is very little reliable secondary coverage here. Some of it could be selectively merged, but it does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker ( talk) 04:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Hidden races (Marvel Comics). The entry there might be slightly expanded but most of this is only sourced to primary sources (i.e. the comics themselves) and not really appropriate for Wikipedia. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Iskandar Shirali

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

The subject does not appear to meet general notability requirements, nor notability requirements as an academic or government official. Thenightaway ( talk) 12:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Azerbaijan. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Badly sourced and promotional. As the nominator states, he does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, nor WP:PROF. I tried multiple spellings of his name in Google Scholar but did not find publications with significant citations. The closest thing to a claim of notability is "Corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Engineering" but as a lower-level membership in an association that prominently charges a membership fee [30] I'm skeptical that this is the sort of scholarly honor that passes WP:PROF#C3. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Sandstein 16:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Nigar Shaji

Nigar Shaji (  | 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)

Duplicate announcements on a person's promotion within India Aerospace Organization. Fails the Anybio criteria Moem-Meom ( talk) 11:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "She's shining bright". The Hindu; Chennai. 27 October 2023 – via Proquest.
  2. ^ Sivapriyan, ETB (2 September 2023). "Meet Nigar Shaji, Aditya L1 project director from Tamil Nadu". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 4 September 2023.
  3. ^ Kumar, Chethan (5 May 2022). "Aim is to find unique outcome from Venus mission". The Times of India; New Delhi – via Proquest.
Keep. She has received quite a large coverage in a number of reliable mainstream newspapers in India and also part of many news/feature on TV channels. She definitely passes the notability criteria. thanks Davidindia ( talk) 10:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel ( talk) 10:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Kamran Imanov

Kamran Imanov (  | 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)

Run of the mill bureaucrat. Does not meet notability standards. Thenightaway ( talk) 11:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • As best I can tell, they're all Azerbaijan government websites. Thenightaway ( talk) 13:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
they’re all primary and routine announcements of appointments and end of posts. No in depth third party coverage. Mccapra ( talk) 18:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. Daniel ( talk) 10:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

2025 Gulfport mayoral election

2025 Gulfport mayoral election (  | 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)

WP:TOOSOON and has no sources. Previously moved to Draft:2025 Gulfport mayoral election Draft:2025 Gulfport Mayoral Election twice for having no sources. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 10:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Mississippi. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 10:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Mayoral elections, especially mayoral elections in small-to-midsize cities, do not need articles this far in advance of the campaign. And even with national or state level elections that do get articles in advance, that's because they have sourcing this far in advance, which this doesn't. Bearcat ( talk) 14:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify -- The lack of secondary sourcing (or, in fact, any sources whatsoever) precludes a mainspace article. I do not agree with the WP:TOOSOON statement; elections are explicitly mentioned as a future event that can be encyclopaedic, but the nominator is absolutely correct that they an only exist with WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Without that, this simply cannot be in the mainspace. The editor should keep this in draftsapce until at least three reliable, secondary sources (not primary governmental or WP:PRIMARYNEWS) develop. Note to closer: If draftify is not an accepted consensus, please consider the preceding as my reasons for deletion instead. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 17:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify per other users. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 20:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Darshan_Singh_Sur

AfDs for this article:
Darshan_Singh_Sur (  | 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 does not passes notability as I have tried to do copy editing and referencing it but did not saw any prominent articles and the cited article too does not talks dominantly of him unlike given in the article. Yamantakks ( talk) 08:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Madhuchhanda Sengupta

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

The subject of this article "may" not meet the guidelines for notability.I can't find any sources. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Irreligion in Yemen. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Secularism in Yemen

Secularism in Yemen (  | 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 page is more or less unsourced. The available citations do not discuss "Secularism in Yemen" either. Dympies ( talk) 08:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree, this was a poor early article attempt. The page should be put up for speedy deletion. Tony24644 ( talk) 15:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Tony24644, was this written with ChatGPT? Curbon7 ( talk) 22:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte ( talk) 17:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Singerband

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

SubTile

SubTile (  | 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)

Zero independent and reliable sources covering this software. The article was probably created by the software's developer, judging by nickname, so there is a conflict of interest.

The article can potentially fall under WP:A11 or WP:G11 section for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure. Deltaspace42 ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Sense of Purpose

Sense of Purpose (  | 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)

Cites no sources, fails WP:BAND DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 07:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Unable to find any coverage. Article cites no sources, the only outside links are to a Myspace page (seriously?) and a dead website, and I'm unable to find any others than a Bandcamp page (primary source so not reliable). Doesn't meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG as per nomination. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk) 18:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Rob E. Gregory Jr.

Rob E. Gregory Jr. (  | 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 and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. 4/6 souces are obits, the other two are routine mill business news. There is history on the author's talk page [31] to eval. //  Timothy ::  talk  06:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Dumitru Radu

Dumitru Radu (  | 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)

Short career on Moldova's first tier of football, no indication of meeting WP:SPORTCRIT. Dumitru Radu is a quite common name in Romanian. Geschichte ( talk) 06:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Răzvan Radu

Răzvan Radu (  | 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)

Romanian futsal with unverifiable length of career, effectively unsourced and with no indication of meeting WP:SPORTCRIT. Common name in Romanian, among others belonging to a footballer born in the same year. Geschichte ( talk) 06:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to List of tallest buildings in Kerala. Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

List of tallest buildings in Kozhikode

List of tallest buildings in Kozhikode (  | 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)

Oddly promo listspam. Fails NLIST, BEFORE found nothing discussing this as a group and no sources show this area is notable for tall buildings. None of the tallest buildings have articles, only one has a source. Upcoming projects again no links to articles, so this serves no purpose under CLN.  //  Timothy ::  talk  06:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Ansh Gupta

Ansh Gupta (  | 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)

Poorly sourced BLP on an Indian men's footballer who played six pro games a pair of years ago and disappeared. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this interview, which has maybe four sentences of independent coverage. Everything else is trivial mentions ( 1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 05:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. under G5 and G11 by Ivanvector. (non-admin closure) – DreamRimmer ( talk) 15:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Gaurishankaar Chaubey

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. All of the sources are paid brand posts. This was previously created under the title Gaurishankar Chaubey and deleted under A7 and G5. I also want to note that this is likely a UPE/COI creation. – DreamRimmer ( talk) 05:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - per nom, also failed Wikipedia general notability guideline. Youknowwhoistheman ( talk) 10:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Obviously promotional page which likely could be speedied; however, a check user should confirm this which would make it G5 eligible. Would also recommend salting for evasiveness and persistence of the sock farm involved. Won't be surprised when the IPs and SPAs start leaving keep !votes below. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. While there is a general consensus toward the treatment of eldest.... there is no consensus in this particular discussion as to whether Ceccarelli meets the guidelines for her own pa ge. Star Mississippi 01:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Edith Ceccarelli

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

There is no evidence that this articles meets the general notability guideline. Interstellarity ( talk) 15:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I translated the article from German seeing it as describing the oldest living American and second oldest person in the world. I think the article is notable. Moondragon21 ( talk) 18:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning keep. If she was 2% older, this would be kept without question. As it stands, the question is, how old is old enough, and in this context being the demonstrable second-oldest living person on the planet is probably sufficient. BD2412 T 18:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is clearly significant coverage in reliable sources, as demonstrated by the citations to the Ukiah Daily Journal and Los Angeles Times, which both cover the subject in detail as the main focus of their articles. Type her name into any search engine and you'll see there are plenty of sources that cover Ceccarelli. To say there's "no evidence" it meets GNG is just plainly false. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 16:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOPAGE. No encyclopedic content in this article that is not already present in the appropriate lists. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 01:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    It seems odd that you would oppose Edie having a separate Wiki page considering she's listed on the Wiki "Oldest Verified People", which is a page you are heavily involved in. GermanShepherd1983 ( talk) 02:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Nothing odd about this at all. I've followed Longevity articles for a very long time, and for most of that have been trying to keep the fanfluff to a minimum. That includes numerous Afd's for articles about people who are insufficiently notable and/or do not have enough encyclopedic content to merit a stand-alone article, such as this one. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 18:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Maybe we should nominate "List of Verified Old People" for deletion as well. Seems to be all fluff, and it seems that a bunch of people that we supposedly "verified" were recently removed because they weren't in fact "verified", so the site lacks credibility. It appears you have an agenda to get Edie removed. It's not like her wiki page is causing any problems and some people enjoy reading about these super old people. GermanShepherd1983 ( talk) 16:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
@GermanShepherd1983, Maybe you should join the 110 Club https://the110club.com/. There's a plethora of unencyclopedic-fanfluff content to keep you happy there. Meanwhile, more cultivated readers can enjoy real Wikipedia articles about individuals who actually merit their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:293E:3400:2757:C2C7:6ACD:F4B ( talk) 18:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
This is Wikipedia, not the library of congress. People come here to read interesting articles and find out interesting things, or to find out one specific piece of information. Edith is currently the oldest currently living American, which is somewhat notable, and the exact question that I had searched that led me to her page. There are articles on this site with far, far less encyclopedic information than her page. There are some pages for members of state legislatures that simply state the person was a part of the state legislature and then died at some point in time, at least her page has something more interesting than "State Senator in Maine, died in 1982". 35.40.40.13 ( talk) 23:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply
@ GermanShepherd1983 You had a clear point at first but WP:NOHARM is no reason to keep an article N1TH Music ( talk) 14:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notability given as she is the oldest living person from the United States and the second-oldest living person in general. She has also gotten significant coverage from the media. And eight other Wikipedias also have an article about her (this includes the German, Russian and Italian Wikipedia). SouthParkFan2006 ( talk) 10:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable for the reasons stated above. Of course, the article could clearly be improved with additional facts and references, but does not warrant deletion. Baldwin de Toeni ( talk) 13:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Being the oldest living person in the United States at some point in time is notable. Nine hundred ninety-nine ( talk) 01:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: She's the oldest person in the US and the second oldest living person in the world. No reason to delete. GermanShepherd1983 ( talk) 03:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as she is the oldest living person in the U.S.. Article could use some more sources though. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 16:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of American supercentenarians, where she is listed. Being the oldest person in X does not establish notability per WP:N, only substantial reliable coverage in sources does, and accordingly the above "keep" opinions should be discounted as at odds with community consensus. See also WP:AFDP#Oldest people, which notes: "Articles about people known only for being the oldest person in a country, etc., at any given time are normally redirected or merged to a list of oldest people.". Sandstein 14:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    "In most cases" most is not all especially when this one has more media coverage then your normal SC Wwew345t ( talk) 17:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sandstein is correct that I do have to discount a number of keep !votes that don't make arguments rooted in our policies and guidelines. That said, we have some editors claiming the GNG is met and some claiming it isn't: further comments addressing that question may bring us closer to consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete GNG seems to be met, but I'm still not sure she's notable just for being old. The article doesn't even say much, she got married, has children and danced until she was 114. WP:ANYBIO, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field;[8] or The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary", I'm not sure she's any of those things. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    By the criteria listed there are many, many pages on Wikipedia that warrant deletion which aren't being discussed at all. 35.40.40.13 ( talk) 00:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. KangarooGymnast ( talk) 00:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    When they get nominated, and they should, they will be discussed and potentially deleted. 2A02:8388:293E:3400:1A05:2704:B5C8:99FC ( talk) 07:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    So what's the point of deleting because she's "not old enough" in your opinion only to have to add her back when she does finally get "old enough". GermanShepherd1983 ( talk) 15:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete The article itself passes WP:GNG, but I don't see why she's notable and deserves an article purely because she was fortunate enough to get to the age of 115. Per Oaktree b, she doesn't meet any of the criterion of WP:ANYBIO, so I'm leaning towards deletion based on his reasoning. KangarooGymnast ( talk) 07:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Sandstein above, the keep !votes are invalid as contrary to agreed policy, and the delete !votes ignore the existing listing in the named list article. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The policy may be a thing everyone agreed to, but the discussion persists if this article meets the policy or not, because it's unclear. As Extraordinary Writ stated "Sandstein is correct that I do have to discount a number of keep !votes that don't make arguments rooted in our policies and guidelines. That said, we have some editors claiming the GNG is met and some claiming it isn't: further comments addressing that question may bring us closer to consensus."
And I'm pretty sure every person who voted delete would agree with the page serving as a redirect. SouthParkFan2006 ( talk) 18:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of American supercentenarians, per Sandstein. A stand-alone page appears not to be warranted, based on WP:AFDP#Oldest people, but I feel being the oldest American is notable enough to possibly warrant including a bio of her on the "American Supercentenarian" page. Wiki O'Ryan ( talk) 00:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Her notability is based on age, unless an objective criterion is established (a minimum age), it passes through WP:GNG. Svartner ( talk) 02:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Delete - Age is obviously not the sole criteria for meriting a page. She has done nothing of significance apart from having lived an extremely long life. Being the oldest in any particular country is also not significant enough to deserve a page. Should she become the oldest in the world, obviously press coverage will increase and a mini bio or even restoration of this page may be warranted. 2A02:8388:293E:3400:1A05:2704:B5C8:99FC ( talk) 09:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: per significant coverage in WP:RS. Sources 2 (The Ukiah Daily) and sources 3 and 4 (Los Angeles Times) count as secondary sources. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 04:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as it is very divided. I'm not sure what to make of the comment that GNG has been met but the article should still be deleted. Notability is what we go by in evaluating articles in AFDs. Also, the comment that "Delete" voters would be okay with a Redirect closure is, as far as I can see, speculation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of American supercentenarians. Oldest person or oldest man seems to be a reliable measure for notability on supercentenarians, but there is not enough expansive coverage for merely oldest in (X) country. Generalissima ( talk) 17:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - for all the reasons listed above. For anyone who wonders why this woman deserves her own article, they might want to peruse Category:American supercentenarians, which so far has 81 articles like this one. — Maile ( talk) 22:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    And yet there are thousands of American supercentenarians that don't have an article... DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 22:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ DerbyCountyinNZ Yes but those don't have not nearly as many sources from GRG, or News organisations with information which isn't covered in the various lists. She seems like an outlier in that regard and also is the oldest living person in the country at the moment, which makes her far more alike to the 81 which do have articles. N1TH Music ( talk) 14:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Most of them weren't the oldest in the Country nor had as much media coverage Wwew345t ( talk) 17:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I understand the point that not all supercentenarians need articles and we need to avoid fancruft within wikipedia but this is clearly an exception. The article obviously needs work and more sourcing however if you search, it is very easy to find, If you check the Gerontology wiki (which I know is unreleiable) and search the references listed there, she appears to have gained traction in the news for almost a decade now, and her life is far more documented than most supercentenarians even many who reached the same age as her. And to add on she is the oldest living person in the USA and the second oldest living and currently placed 29th on the List of the verified oldest people And looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Branyas Morera there seems to be consensus now that the oldest living person is notable, whilst Cecarelli is only second, there is abundant information from reliable sources about her life beyond what is mentioned in various lists, the article just needs to be worked on. Ceccarelli appears to be just as if not more notable than Tekla Juniewicz who survived AFD prior to the change which happened to WP:Peopleoutcomes at the beginning of 2023. N1TH Music ( talk) 14:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep most supercentenarians don't get alot of coverage but this one has even before she became the oldest in her state her birthday was reported locally since she was 108 now she has national coverage as the oldest living person in America if you have this much coverage from many different newspapers that should make you atleast notable enough for a page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwew345t ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. UtherSRG (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Dunneville, California

Dunneville, California (  | 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)

Contested PROD. This is an interesting one: The site is actually a restaurant-bar: [37]; it was once a rural saloon that became informally known as Dunneville because of a local rancher, James Dunne, who was a regular there ( [38]). Later a Dunneville Estates housing development was built nearby (Ref. 2 in the article). So we have a stub article because GNIS somehow picked up an in-joke about an alcoholic farmer who spent his days at a local tavern. Neither restaurants nor housing developments are inherently notable per WP:GEOLAND, and therefore WP:GNG applies. I would argue this article does not reach that bar, as the few references I can find are about the restaurant and not the "community". This is just a rural intersection with an old bar, a new housing development just to the north, and what looks like a wood chip yard (see satellite image of the coordinates). Not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 00:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 00:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Ironically, following up on that newspaper article tells us that the Dunne ranch is hugely notable. Amusingly, I might also have got there by following up on Viola Dunne via the usual Arcadia Publishing book route. Uncle G ( talk) 10:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Dunne ranch from Rancho Ausaymas y San Felipe
  • Keep - notable historic crossroads and stage station and meeting place in an otherwise rural area; indigenous village in vicinity etc. jengod ( talk) 17:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 00:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • MoveDelete - Dunneville, California clearly never existed, move article to Dunneville Ranch or similar, or merge if such article exists. The bar can become a section of the this newly titled article. The existing article is about a nonnotable, never existing place and WP:GNG is clear that these must be deleted or merged. James.folsom ( talk) 02:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Well-sourced article about a former place on the map. Appears to pass GNG and I don't see any reason to delete this well-written article. SportingFlyer T· C 02:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete It's not clear where the name really comes from but it's reasonably clear that there was no settlement here by this or another name. If there is felt to be a need to have an article on the ranch, it can be created on its own. Mangoe ( talk) 05:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: per article improvement. WP:PRIMARY may still be an issue. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 05:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It's hard to see any consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - There has been a great deal of improvements since this article was nominated. It's been turned into a fairly substantive sourced article now. Nothing like it was when this nomination started. Looks really good now. — Maile ( talk) 03:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Marty, California

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

No indication this was a notable settlement, 1907 map has nothing but a name next to the railroad https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=1c6fd750f09a49579337f04f012ceff1 Reywas92 Talk 20:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 00:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Move, I think this is another good opportunity for good. Move the article to new name appropriate for the Marty's or their ranch and this place then becomes mentioned there. While this would be more work, it's preferable to just deleting. In any case this is a train station in yolo county, it is not a city in yolo county. QED the title/url location is misleading. So at minimum it needs a name change or deletion. I support either. Because if anybody ever creates the article on the Marty's, then the train station will likely be mentioned anyway. James.folsom ( talk) 03:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per nomination. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 23:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you seek this article to be moved, redirected or merged, you have to specify the target article or your proposal will have much less weight. Closers shouldn't be guessing what you want.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Uncle G has accurately stated what this location actually was -- a railway whistle stop. In its description of the Marty ranch, History of Yolo County, California says: shipping facilities are provided by the Marty station on the new Sacramento and Woodland electric railroad, a switch on the ranch affording direct communcation 1. The brevity of the current article doesn't really give anyone a leg up on writing an article about Antone Marty, so I don't think a move is appropriate. Jfire ( talk) 05:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Nothing to indicate this was ever any sort of "settlement"; this was the name for a railway whistle stop for a nearby farm, not a "settlement" of any kind per User:Uncle G. Does not meet WP:GEOLAND. Streetlampguy301 ( talk) 22:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ due to a lack of participation. Can be re-nominated at AfD immediately if so desired. Daniel ( talk) 00:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Kattankudy Central College

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

Non-notable school. PROD declined in 2012 but guideline changed in 2017, see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Web search only brings up Facebook & other social media. – Fayenatic London 14:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

●Comment- Ok so i found this, it is most definitely significant coverage but the problem is it is a blog which makes it unreliable and most likely a primary source. If this much can be written there must be reliable sources out there somewhere, the problem is finding them. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk) 16:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Also Found this which I believe shows that the college is notable. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk) 18:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Found this too. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk) 18:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Found this. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk) 18:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
●Keep- I got 3 results from Google Books, 4 direct mentions in Google Scholar, 2 results from Google News, & 4 reliable Results from a basic Google Search. Due to this school opening in Jan 1930 most news article about this school are going to be found offline. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk) 18:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 00:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 02:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel ( talk) 00:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Sand Springs, Apache County, Arizona

Sand Springs, Apache County, Arizona (  | 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 non-notable GNIS stub. I could not find coverage for it on Google and Google News Archive.

Also comes with a complimentary bit of WP:OR:

It is one of two locations in Arizona with this name, the other being located in Coconino County.

बिनोद थारू ( talk) 01:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete I too cannot find any mention of the populated place on Google Maps. The closest I get is Sand Springs Drive, which is only a road, not a populated place. Thanks, Wikieditor019 ( Talk to me) 17:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel ( talk) 00:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Puertocito, Arizona

Puertocito, Arizona (  | 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 mass-created GNIS stub. Google search and Google Newspaper Archive searches turned empty. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 01:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 01:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Clearly non-notable; only sources are GNIS and a site that mirrors GNIS, possibly also fails WP:V as no information could be found. Satellite view of coordinates shows empty desert with a road maybe a mile to the west. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 02:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Literally nothing on satellite besides desert and such for miles in almost any direction. Definitely not a "populated place". Typical WP:GNIS fail. Streetlampguy301 ( talk) 03:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Another Wikipedia lie. The GNIS never said that this was a populated place in the first place. The feature code was "locale", not "ppl". Yet this article said "populated place" in its first revision. Given the proximity of the letter "P" of "Puertocito Wash" (the head end of the Altar Wash) on some maps, I suspect yet another GNIS comedy of errors that got the a separate "locale" in addition to the record for the Wash itself. Certainly there's no Puertocito nor Puertecito in any Pima history that I can find. Uncle G ( talk) 03:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I searched the newspaper archives, google, and google scholar. This is not a populated area. There was some survey work done around the area but that doesn't make it notable and the survey work does not note a population. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's a wash, or dry creekbed. Possibly notable under GEOFEAT if there's anything on the wash but unlikely given the other source searches here - I didn't look. SportingFlyer T· C 17:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • DeleteAll that has been said here is true. James.folsom ( talk) 01:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I note the 'merge' !vote right at the bottom, but have elected not to go with that as an ATD as there was significant concern expressed in other delete !votes about the material pretty much entirely being sourced to primary sources. If someone wants to work on a merge here and has the subject matter expertise, please flick me a note on my talk page and I'll undelete and redirect to preserve the history at that point. Daniel ( talk) 00:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Initiation (Theosophy)

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

Article pulling almost exclusively from primary sources (i.e., religious texts); non-notable esoteric equivalent of in-universe or fancruft topic. Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Noting that an article on this subject was deleted as the result of a AfD in 2009. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Spirituality. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No independent sources could be found, I don't believe this meets the criteria for having an article Big Money Threepwood ( talk) 07:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or limited merge? This is all massively overblown and pretty much impossible to read, never mind make any sense of. There are sources but I have no idea whether they convey any notability or support what is being said in the article. If there are any kernels of genuine and validly sourced information here then I guess that they can be merged, if not already covered elsewhere, but the vast bulk of this is incomprehensible cruft and has to go. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 12:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the place for uncritical repetition of pseudoscientific meanderings like this: According to the Ancient Wisdom Teachings, death is merely a transition from one state of consciousness to another. While scientific materialists may deny the legitimacy of this view, physicists have long recognized that energy cannot be destroyed, even if it changes form. It is possible that an encyclopedic article on the topic could be written, but it has yet to be established that one is necessary; the default assumption is that concepts within Theosophy can be covered in the article Theosophy. I believe that WP:TNT applies: even if a stand-alone article can be justified, one would have to start over from scratch to write it. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (I was planning to nominate this myself). I couldn't find any academic sources specifically about this topic. We generally don't have articles about initiation into religious/spiritual groups anyway. The current article is almost entirely based on primary sources. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing to suggest the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. If it were, WP:TNT would be advisable. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per lack of reliable sources. There are 6 or so other Theosophy articles that are similar to this one with no independent sources that may need deleting. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 22:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No secondary sources. The article has over 100 citations to theosophists Charles Webster Leadbeater, Alice Bailey, and Benjamin Creme. If secondary sources exist to write the article, it likely would need to be done from scratch without content like, "Sanat Kumara's "consciousness is of so extended a nature that it comprehends at once all the life on our globe. In his hands are the powers of cyclic destruction, for he wields Fohat (i.e. beams composed of "bubbles in space" used by Theosophical deities to materialize or dematerialize material objects) in its higher forms and can deal directly with cosmic forces outside our chain (i.e., outside our solar system)." Beings at this level demonstrate: 1) omniscience regarding events occurring on any singular planet; 2) the capacity to materialize objects; and 3) the ability to affect at a distance happenings in other nearby planetary systems." Rjjiii ( talk) 01:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge material supported by reliable sources to Religious initiation rites, which also covers Thelema and Wicca. Not sure why Theosophy isn't also mentioned there. Skyerise ( talk) 11:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_December_31&oldid=1194307119"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE