Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 July 29 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. It's snowing! ✗ plicit 14:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Persecution of Christians by Christians

Persecution of Christians by Christians (  | talk | history | 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 sources, POV, questionable labelling, has all come together to create a WP:COATRACK which seems to exist mainly for a 'gotcha title'. Also allegations of WP:OR and cherrypicking. Only conversation on Talk has been people calling for deletion. Ultimately, I feel any of this information can be included elsewhere (such as Sectarian violence among Christians). Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk) 00:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Tong Yabghu Khagan's Expedition to East Iran

Tong Yabghu Khagan's Expedition to East Iran (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another random Turkic-related battle/war created by a brand new user and which has source issues.

The most cited source, History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The crossroads of civilizations, A.D. 250 to 750. does not have a single mention of "Tong Yabghu" and the pages cited show completely different topics, see for yourself [5]. I can only assume that the other sources has similar issues. Regardless, no search in WP:RS showed any result of a "war" in 625.

Fails WP:NHISTORY and WP:GNG. Imagine if every random, vague, conflict was to be made into an article, that is whats occuring in these type of articles. I suspect meatpuppetry, if not sockpuppetry, though that's another story. See also [6]. HistoryofIran ( talk) 23:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Only thing you do is literally coming up with stuff like Wikipedia rules. Here are a few accurate/reliable sources:
  • The Archaeology of Afghanistan from earliest times to the Timurid period: New Edition Chapter-6 [1]
  • History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The crossroads of civilizations, A.D. 250 to 750., p. 362 [2]
  • Christoph Baumer, History of Central Asia, The: 4-volume set, p. 200 [3]
  • The Global Connections of Gandhāran Art: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop of the Gandhāra Connections Project, University of Oxford, 18th-19th March, 2019, p. 19 [4]
And yes i am a brand new user with source issues (!), o and i forgot to say, i am an object. (i am a which) Hunnic Enjoyer ( talk) 13:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ [4]
  • HistoryofIran is incorrect about the HcCA source: I quote from it "The definitive annexation of Tokharistan and Gandhara to the Western Türk Empire was to take place some years later, in c.625, when Sasanian Iran became involved in the war against Byzantium that ultimately led to its eclipse.8 The Western Türk army of T’ung Yabghukaghan advanced to the River Indus, took possession of the most important cities and replaced the Hephthalite dynasties with Türk rulers. This event was commemorated by a medal minted probably by Tardushad, the new Türk ruler of Tokharistan, in honour of T’ung Yabghukaghan..."
Nevertheless, even this is minor coverage at best. There is nothing in the article which can't be sourced to this the HcCa, an extremely in-depth source. I am extremely hesitant attributing any sort of WP:SIGCOV to the article: for that reason, delete. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Ah, my bad. Crossed that bit. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 15:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eighth Doctor#Lucie Miller. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Lucie Miller

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

While a very notable companion in spin-off material, I cannot find any evidence of SIGCOV. A quick search for sources yields only one or two potential results, which aren't enough to build an article off of. As it stands, the article fails SIGCOV. A redirect to either the Companion article or the list of Doctor Who Supporting Characters article seems the best option here. Pokelego999 ( talk) 19:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Pokelego999 ( talk) 19:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and United Kingdom. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Not enough sources exist to make an article. I have no opinion on which redirect target would be better. QuicoleJR ( talk) 16:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While a lot of the audio companions might not rise to this, as her stories were broadcast on BB7 I believe there has been coverage, such as here, which should be incorporated. Frond Dishlock ( talk) 02:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Can you provide more than just one source? While this one does have some commentary on the character, most of the other sources I found during my search were either trivial mentions, listicles, or didn't go in depth on her. Unless more can be provided that adequately discuss the character, I don't feel it's enough to justify the article's separate existence. Pokelego999 ( talk) 12:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, here is another article from Gizmodo. Frond Dishlock ( talk) 05:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Redirect not enough coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. Can't make an encyclopedic article without it. Shooterwalker ( talk) 20:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get a specific redirect target from y'all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Deafhead

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

Fails WP:GNG. A Google search reveals one relevant article, and the other results are mostly regurgitation of this WSJ article. Relevant info should be folded into Deadhead. — Ghost River 20:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. While there is some disagreement over the level of independence of cited sources, delete has the upper hand in terms of both arguments and numbers. Arguments relating to the fact that the series is still airing suggest that this could be a WP:TOOSOON case. signed, Rosguill talk 02:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Ranjithame

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

Fails WP:GNG; I can find no reliable sources to indicate notability (a search for "Ranjithame" finds only a Tamil-language song). Also, WP:FUTURE- this isn't a catalogue of upcoming minor soap operas. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 17:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 17:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Absolutely no sources, no claim of notability and no information useful to the reader. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: ( talk, contribs) 17:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
This and whatever I had in the first nomination are all namesakes of the popular song that came in a Tamil movie, and this minor namesake's NN is clearly shown by the lack of citations. The best use of this article name is to redirect it to the film's soundtrack article. Karnataka ( talk) 17:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree with that this article itself should be deleted, the above was just an idea with the link Karnataka ( talk) 07:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete as non-notable. In addition, I would object to the redirect suggested above as having little justification. Deckkohl ( talk) 11:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm neutral on the redirect issue; it's a bit of a strecth, and possibly WP:ASTONISHING, but still comes under {{ r from subtopic}}. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 13:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate new sources. Also, noting that this article was the subject of an AFD recently that closed as Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: the subject of the previous nomination (by me) was completely different to this one. This is about an upcoming TV series, the previous one was about a game show. Like I mentioned above, the usage of the term 'Ranjithame' has bolstered after the release of the song in the same name, which is probably the primary topic of this. Karnataka ( talk) 15:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: here's a source assessment, input/modifications appreciated. I hope to let this table represent consensus, not just my own assessment, so feel free to edit it. At the moment, GNG is shaky, largely because I'm unsure about source reliability. I also quite conflicted about tThe first times of india source- it seems like routine coverage and unreliable, but I may be biased against any article that uses language like " deets inside" in the headline. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 17:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Hindu Tamil Thisai ~ No consensus ? No Passing mention ✘ No
News18 Tamil Nadu Yes Secondary news source ? Yes ? Unknown
News18 Tamil Nadu (2) Yes Secondary news source ? ~ Seems half-and-half, input is appreciated ? Unknown
The Times of India Yes Secondary news source ~ No consensus. ? WP:ROUTINE coverage? ? Unknown
cinema.vikatan.com Yes Secondary news source Yes No No mention ✘ No
Times of India 2 Yes Secondary news source ~ No consensus ? WP:ROUTINE coverage? ? Unknown
Trailer No Yes WP:ABOUTSELF Yes ✘ No
Trailer/promo No Yes WP:ABOUTSELF Yes ✘ No
Conclusion Yes ? ~ ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
  • Keep. I do not agree with the table above especially the last column. Hindu Tamil Thisai source may mention the name once but the whole article is about the television series only. Vikatan is also a reliable source. Although The Times of India is listed as may or may not be reliable, it is one of the main newspapers of India and should be considered reliable for non-gossip material. DareshMohan ( talk) 18:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Well, feel free to modify the source assessment table. As I said, I'll let it represent group consensus, not just my own opinion. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 20:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I feel like the Tamil Thisai source is not independent - it's only two paragraphs, and first being a introduction to the director and the second is a quote from him that explains his ideas for the story. I'm not exactly sure how factually correct the first News18 source is because as it notes in the article itself, there were no official details on the serial. Also note that only three sentences provide information on the serial, with others just being actor history. The second News18 source is about the actor, their involvement in another serial, and a passing mention that they'll take part in this one. Vikatan source talks about a completely different topic. I feel like both ToI sources are routine coverage, half of the content is just about actor history and the content about the serial are in both ToI articles. Karnataka ( talk) 22:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The source analysis is fairly explicit in its conclusions. It must be delete as it fails WP:SIGCOV. The article should have been created in draft. It is clear a bunch of UPE editors have decided to promote it on Wikipedia. I'll be sending them to coin. scope_creep Talk 10:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is still current and ongoing with new comments recently added. Relisting for one more cycle to help ascertain consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 20:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: The show still airing, in future can add more source. P.Karthik.95 ( talk) 15:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Seems like a WP:ATA#CRYSTAL argument. Once this may be shown as a notable TV series for encyclopedic entry can definitely be recreated in draftspace like mentioned. Karnataka ( talk) 18:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is a dispute about the source analysis table results.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Arguments for keeping were strong enough, and uncontested. The mere nomination is not enough to get the article deleted. (non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie ( talk) 01:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Chinna (art director)

Chinna (art director) (  | talk | history | 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:BLP whose only sources are IMDb and a dead link (presumably used to be a WP:SELFSOURCE). Copious tone and copyediting issues. jlwoodwa ( talk) 20:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. jlwoodwa ( talk) 20:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. See this (Note, August 2): See comment below)(which raises a massive copyright violation issue but there was no need, I thought, to flag yet another issue ... a big cleanup would be necessary) or this. Various articles on this. Mostly, I've checked a few films in the considerable list of his alleged participations and they seem to be correct. (examples: [10] [11].- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: the link number 1) above has for some reason turned "dead" on the TOI website- But it leads, if one clicks a few things, to the following text (copied verbatim by the article, as indicated):
"Chinna is one of the leading art director in Indian cinema. His debut venture was ‘Kalisi Nadudham’ (Telugu). He started art direction together with his guru B Anand Sai (son of senior art director B Chellam). His started his career as Assistant Art Director for the Tamil movie ‘Roja Malare’ starring Murali. Next was ‘Santosham’ followed by ‘Enasare Asave’ and so on. Then Shifted to Hyderabad for ‘Tholiprema’. Again together with his guru Anand Sai, he did Telugu movies like ‘Tholiprema’, ‘Thamudu’, ‘Badri’, ‘Kushi’ and ‘Prematho ra’.
In July 2017, his name was included in the list of 12 personalities of Telugu cinema, including actors, directors and producers, against whom the Telangana Prohibition and Excise Department had issued notices under relevant sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, asking them to appear before its special investigation team (SIT)." (The layout is currently terrible for some reason) [1]
The TOI also provides a filmography, which, makes me think he meets the criterion#3 for Creative professionals for his various contributions to notable films
  1. ^ "Chinna". The Times of India. ISSN  0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-08-02.

My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether to merge and if so, where , can be discussed on the article talk page. Randykitty ( talk) 09:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Google Directory

Google Directory (  | talk | history | 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 Qwv ( talk) 23:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Software, and Websites. Qwv ( talk) 23:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete since it is a non-notable defunct service unlikely to receive any more coverage in the future. Anton.bersh ( talk) 11:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED; any relevant material can be merged into List of Google products. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 11:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Just because a service no longer exists doesn't mean the page about it should be deleted. It shows up quite a lot in Google Scholar (which, by the way, speaks a lot about its notability), and I wish that when encountering something in old scholarly papers, one could quickly figure out on the Wiki what it was. Suitskvarts ( talk) 15:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to see if there is support for a Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I'd also favor a erge, but it seems to me that the best target would be to merge into DMOZ#Content users as a single paragraph. Most of the content in this article is actually describing DMOZ's structure anyway. (Also, LOL @ this sentence in the article: Everything was green. Ah, the memories.) -- Visviva ( talk) 06:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep or merge. I see some sigcov in (Calegari, S., & Pasi, G. (2010). Ontology-based information behaviour to improve web search. Future Internet 2(4),) but it's a bit jargon-filled. There are a decent number of other smaller mentions in academic resources, including instructions on how to use it to find field-specific information. I think WP:NOTTEMPORARY probably applies here as web directories are mostly forgotten now, but were quite the thing for a while. A such, we should should certainly seek an ATD. Visviva's suggested merge would be a fine one, unless we find more sources that distinguish Google Directory from other web directories. — siro χ o 12:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to List of Google products. Discontinued products can be notable enough for a standalone article but this one doesn't have enough significant coverage in reliable sources to merit a full article. It can easily just be a paragraph in the list. Steven Walling •  talk 06:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because I'm not seeing a rough consensus among editors and two different target pages for a Merge have been mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment, I think a complex merge with some appropriate verifiable information going to each of the existing section DMOZ#Content users and the existing entry in List of Google products would be appropriate here. I'm willing to handle it if it's the consensus. — siro χ o 22:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per Siroxo – there certainly seems to be some significant coverage, and lack of potential future coverage isn't relevant by itself. If the article is merged it should be into DMOZ with a link from List of Google products, any additional information would disrupt the format of the list article, and Google Directory is definitely notable as a major user of DMOZ. -- AlexandraAVX ( talk) 12:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think the sources are sufficient. The "Missing manual" book at 6 pages on the directory, and Google power tools has 8. Both give pretty detailed descriptions of the service. "Learn google" seems to have less but I can't view the relevant pages. I've added names to the references to make them easier to reuse, and will try filling in some of the areas without sources. Lamona ( talk) 23:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have made a lot of improvements to the article, so if you !voted early please take another look. Lamona ( talk) 16:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep is preferable to merge in this case, due to the principle that "notability is not temporary". Eluchil404 ( talk) 06:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At this point there's no consensus that I can see. No prejudice to a renomination in, say, a month from now if there's no clear improvement. Randykitty ( talk) 09:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sumaya Alnasser

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

Hello all,

First: The article does not meet the criteria for personalities, there are no real achievements, and it is clear that the article was created for promotional purposes only.

Second: The article was deleted four times from the Arabic Wikipedia, and whoever created this article was banned due to vandalism and published the article over and over again.

Obviously, this article is for promotional purposes only. Osps7 ( talk) 17:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep I totally disagree with you. Actually it meets the criteria for personalities, She is famous, has real achievements, popular in her country. Always appear in TV shows. She got several prizes. She is very well known business women. Google her name in Arabic (سمية الناصر) you will find many trusted sources. Mazin suliman ( talk) 18:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Moreover, I reviewed the Arabic version of this article which was deleted by you.
First of all: the Arabic version was direct translation of the English version. It is not new article. The translation took place after the English version was published.
Second: The user was not banned. You got in conflict with him. As result you came here to English Wikipedi and ask for deletion of this article to force your opinion which is not fair.
Again, the article meet meet the criteria for personalities. She got several achievements and got many international prizes. She is famous and popular. Mazin suliman ( talk) 18:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete for lack of coverage. Other than CNN, rest are non-RS or promo. I only find two hits in Gnews, neither of which seems like much. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Dear Oaktree,
Thank you so much for your replay. regarding the coverage, I can mention more than 100 trusted sources.
Here are examples:
Forbes Middle east listed her among the top 100 influential women in middle east: see here name listed in #98
[12] Forbes Middle east
Also, English Vogue and Arabic Vogue talked about her
Other popral trusted sources: Mille , ELLE, harpersbazaararabia. Haya, abouther Hia, popsugar, Youm7 , Okaz (government newspaper), Sayidaty, al-madina (government newspaper) , gheir, foochia, almarsal, hayatouki., healthmagazine, all of these magazines, websites, newspapers talked about. I can add more if you want.
Kindly, take into account the following topic Women's rights in Saudi Arabia which may create many challenges. Mazin suliman ( talk) 19:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Dear @ Oaktree b, I improved and edited the article by adding more reliable sources. I hope this addressed your conncrns. Thank you for your comments. Mazin suliman ( talk) 22:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep the personal squabbles to yourselves, we're here to review the article on the quality of the sources. The rest is immaterial. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I will. Thank you so much. Mazin suliman ( talk) 20:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting with the comment that "Famous and popular =/= Being Notable on Wikipedia"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep I've gone through the article and according to my knowledge it meets the notability guidelines for WP:BLP and criteria for WP:Notability (people). As per the research, the subject has many credible citations and mentions on notable platforms, newspapers, and media outlets. Therefore, it can be improved and made better in future.
I think the below source is not merely a passing mention and can be used:
The National News
The below link also clarifies the fact that she was among the top 100 influential women in middle east. Furthermore, I think the source is quite reliable as well.
Gulf News
Moreover, I've removed the amazon book listing link the article had. -- Leojuan ( talk) 08:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The listed sources do not have any international reference, and I suspect that they are paid news.
Also, the discussion is to delete the article, not to gather votes!! Osps7 ( talk) 11:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Hey Osps7. I guess you're mistaken here. You should have gone with UDP (Undisclosed paid) tag, and not deletion right away. You've opened a deletion/discussion log for this article, which makes clear sense to me that it needs suggestions/votes to either keep it or remove it. Coming back to the fact where you mentioned that the listed sources do not have any international reference. Can you elaborate on that? Gulf News is considered to be an international source to my knowledge. Maybe I'm wrong here. But it still doesn't make any sense to open a deletion page and not taking suggestions for keeping or deleting the article. Thank you! Leojuan ( talk) 12:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep - The articles from The National (Abu Dhabi) ( 1) and Arab News ( 2)look okay to me (although they seem quite promotional), but I don't see much other significant coverage. Other editors should assess if those sources are sufficiently independent and reliable to constitute WP:SIGCOV. Suriname0 ( talk) 18:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It seems we have basic here. Okoslavia ( talk) 21:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to hear from some experienced editors. I'll admit I'm skeptical of "lifestyle coaches" no matter what their nationality. Coaching is an interpersonal activity and it's hard to demonstrate notability in it. I also wonder how she could have possibly, at 41 years of age, trained 200,000 people...that's a small country! So while there is a rough consensus to Keep, I'm skeptical enough about the claims of the article to warrant a third relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - based on searching the title of the Arab News source " Peace without Borders announces first Saudi peace ambassador", this appears primarily based on a press release, which includes the extraordinary claim, "She has trained more than 200 thousand people". Beccaynr ( talk) 16:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Liz, I share your skepticism about 200,000 trainees. I've spent 2 hours on refs. Sadly, I went through all the chaff before finding the reliable stuff. Ms. Alnasser, to a certain extent is famous for being famous in the Middle East. Also, from reading the local news coverage in translation, some of her fame is the novelty of her messages (such as self-care for women) in Saudi Arabia - stuff that seems self-evident in other cultures. She is also a great self-promoter.
    Looking at the sources:
      • Vogue, Mille, Hia are interviews. See Wikipedia:Interviews.
      • Harper's Bazaar article appears to be written by Sumaya Alnasser
      • Haya-online.com is used as a ref in only one article. [13]
      • AboutHer.com is owned by Saudi Research and Media Group. We use it as a ref on 50+ articles. [14] The article is bylined and gushy.
      • PopSugar is an article/interview hybrid.
      • youm7.com is very brief
      • The foochia.com article is too short. It's fluffy. Only 5 articles use that site as a ref. Similar issues are with refs to gheir.com (3 article use that site) and healthmagazine.ae (3 article use that site).
      • "Peace without borders" is a 3-word phrase that shows up many times. The organization mentioned in the article seems non-notable. The domain pwbparis.org no longer works; here is Archive.org's history
        • The Kawa, Okaz, Gulf Daily News, almrsal.com articles are brief articles about Sumaya Alnasser winning their award or being named a peace ambassador.
      • The hayatouki.com link didn't work.
      • The Forbes Middle East article ranks Sumaya Alnasser 98th on the list of 100.
    (Warning, my web translator did a very poor job with this article- another honoree's name was translated from Arabic as "Orgasm of the Runes")
    The Sayidaty Award for Excellence and Creativity seems like a legit honor (compared to 98th on the Forbes list and the mythical Peace without borders honor)
    Here is the Arab Wikipedia deletion log.( Google translated version) Interestingly, one of the deleted articles was created by a now globally banned admin with 200,000+ edits. Looking for a paid editor for your bio - go for the top guy!
    Conclusion: String together the solid The National (Abu Dhabi) article, the non-interview part of the PopSugar article + maybe a few pieces of other stuff (carefully selected) and I find marginal notability. That said, I won't cry if Liz deletes this.
    -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 19:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Content substantially similar to the press release also appears in the 2018 source by The National (Abu Dhabi): Saudi life coach Sumayah Alnasser: 'The more I meditated, the more I noticed everything improving', including a "more than 200,000 clients around the world" claim. The National source is largely based on her statements and has a focus on promoting her meditation CD The Back Door - the writer does not provide their own secondary commentary about the CD. The 2018 Vogue interview The First Female Saudi Life Coach on Her Top Tips for Success says she "delivers courses in Arabic to thousands of clients worldwide," and offers several "quick-fire tips" (quotes) from Al-Nasser, and promotes The Back Door at the end of the interview. The 2018 Health Magazine source noted above, " The Path to Loving Yourself – Renowned Saudi Life Coach, Dr. Sumaya Alnasser on Cultivating Self-Relationship" is a press release; the Gulf News source noted above UAE expats among 100 most Influential women in Middle East is reporting on a Forbes list and the presence of some expats on the list for the first time - Al-Nasser is only briefly mentioned in a reprinting of the full Forbes list of 100 most influential women in the Middle East: "98. Sumaya Al-Nasser, Founder, Sumaya 369". Beccaynr ( talk) 18:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - there does not appear to be sufficient support available for WP:BASIC notability at this time, and Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. In my comments above, I identified sources that appear to draw on press release content and/or are based on interviews, and/or otherwise lack secondary context or commentary to help support notability. Other sources include a 2018 Pop Sugar interview You're Meditating Wrong, According to This Saudi Life Coach which includes a quote of what she "previously said" and quotes from what she says, followed by "five steps to getting started" with meditation that are not clearly attributed to her. I think reporting on the Forbes list can help show its significance; an Al Riyadh (newspaper) source was added to the article (Google translated: "Six Saudi women are on the Forbes list of the most influential women in the Middle East") and states (translated), "As for the last Saudi woman in the Forbes list, Sumaya Al-Nasser, the founder of the “Sumaya 369” company specialized in the consulting sector, ranked 98 in the classification.") However, an Argaam source, titled 6 Saudi women on Forbes most influential list repeats the "has trained more than 200,000 people" press release claim in its blurb about her. The Forbes list itself says (Google translated): "Founder, Sumaya 369, consulting sector, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia". And as noted above, there are various sources briefly reporting announcements, e.g. Okaz about the 2018 Peace Without Borders peace ambassador with a brief general blurb about her work; Al Madina (newspaper), reporting (Google translated) "The Prince of Al-Sharqiya honors 20 Saudi winners of the Sayidaty Award for Excellence and Creativity"; she is listed as one of two honored in the humanitarian and social work category. In the 2019 CNN interview source, (Google translated), there is "the presenter’s astonishment that she holds a doctorate in interpretation and the sciences of the Qur’an and is not veiled" reported, which seems more substantial than interviews promoting her CD or offering tips on success or meditation, etc. While she appears to have some independent recognition, most sources appear promotional and/or lack independence, reliability, or the secondary context or commentary needed to support notability and help develop a neutral and balanced article. Beccaynr ( talk) 21:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Beccaynr, Your assessment is different from mine, so the admin should probably look at the two I noted and decide for themselves.
    -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 23:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    To clarify the policy reasons supporting my !vote: I used a search method that can be helpful for identifying advertisements masquerading as articles, i.e. finding press release content incorporated into other sources, particularly in sources with other signs of promotion, such as The National, with its reliance on her statements and lack of independent secondary commentary on her work, while other sources, such as Vogue and Al Riyadh, do not repeat the extraordinary claim also made by the press release.
    Our notability guideline has two prongs - first, whether there is support for GNG or its functional equivalent - there do not appear to be sufficient independent, reliable, and secondary sources with which we can build an encyclopedic article; second, whether this article should be excluded by the What Wikipedia is not policy - the sources largely appear to demonstrate that this article should be deleted, because of the need to protect the encyclopedia from promotion and advertising. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 01:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Zagg

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

Looks like a WP:ROTM company who is only a distributor of accessories. The page mostly has details about the management structure change and has only standard notices and routine coverage of acquisitions, which as per WP:ORGDEPTH does not make the company notable. It was created by an SPA and was proposed for deletion in the past (unrelated but FYI). Trolli Onida ( talk) 14:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Utah. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment PC Mag and the Verge talk about a service the company offers, I'm not sure that's enough for notability here though. Agree that most sourcing is about management changes. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 18:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know if this company is notable but 500+ million U.S. dollars in sales is not "run of the mill", at least not in my country.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 19:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I agree. Sounds impressive and usually for a stock traded on Nasdaq and at those revenue levels we'd find analyst reports which discuss the company in detail. But I cannot locate any reports. We need references that meet NCORP. I'm happy to revisit my !vote if someone locates something but as of now, there's nothing by way of sources that meets our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 08:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd years ago so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The page has 27 sources and was also a listed company. But, sources don't help with notability. If stock listing of companies was enough to make it notable, then it could make sense. I don't think that's the case for notability. Revenue is good, but not a subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as per criteria. CourtseyDriver ( talk) 23:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's consensus that List of cities in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern by population should be merged here. Randykitty ( talk) 09:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

List of cities in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania

List of cities in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (  | talk | history | 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 scope of this article and List_of_cities_in_Mecklenburg-Vorpommern_by_population are exactly the same, but where to merge the content to is far from obvious because both articles aren't too good Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 21:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. This "sub-stub" obviously needs a lot of work, but sufficient sources seem to be available. Randykitty ( talk) 09:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Julius Hammer

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

Biography of a person, not making or sourcing any serious claim to passing our notability criteria for people. As always, notability is not inherited, so people don't get articles just for being related to other people per se -- but "had notable descendants" is the only notability claim being attempted here at all, and the sole source is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a review of his son's autobiography, which is not enough coverage to claim that he would pass WP:GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 21:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Today, actor Armie Hammer and his personal life get all the attention. However his great-great-grandfather, Julius, and great-grandfather, Armand Hammer, were far more consequential. Julius led formation of the Communist Party of the United States of America [15] and worked as a Soviet secret agent in the U.S. Notwithstanding Communism's hostility to capitalism, Julius also made a small fortune for himself through his dealings with Amtorg Trading Corporation. Armand subsequently turned the small fortune into a huge fortune, also due in art to his Soviet ties. Here's a sample of coverage:
Attempted jury-tampering by an agent of the Tammany Hall political machine further sensationalized the trial.
  • Spence, Richard B (21 June 2017). Wall Street and the Russian Revolution 1905-1925. pp. 94–96, 101, 145–146, 189, 199, 204, 241, 243, 257. ISBN  978-1634241236.
    • Julius gets more attention in this book than his son Armand since during this era, 23-year old Armand was working as his father's representative in the USSR.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 00:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
If all of that is true, then it was the article creator's job to put it in the article in the first place, not my job to psychically know things the article isn't saying. Bearcat ( talk) 15:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Bearcat, I don't think I said anything about you. Just the article. If you didn't know some of the Hammer family history, you might not know about Julius and Armand. I knew about the Hammers from a relative's interactions with Armand Hammer. So I zeroed in on this AfD when I saw it on AfD list. Armand, by the way, was pretty ethically challenged in his dealings with my relative, but then that's WP:OR. I don't know much about Armie Hammer; I haven't had time to sink my teeth into his story.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 17:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify if the creator is willing to bring it beyond the barest of stubs. If not, it will need to be deleted until someone wishes to create an actual encyclopedic article. Thanks to A. B. for coming up with sources. Lamona ( talk) 01:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per A.B.'s sources. signed, Rosguill talk 02:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 believe there's enough coverage" is an argument to avoid in AfD debates. Ignoring these !votes, there is consensus that this currently doesn't pass GNG. As there is no indication when this might change, I see no good reason to draftify. If and when this meets GNG in future, the current article can be restored by any admin. Randykitty ( talk) 09:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Joe O'Connor (footballer)

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

A web search finds passing mentions but no WP:SIGCOV. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on ( talk) 09:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Per KatoKungLee. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 15:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • DeleteRedirect to Exeter City F.C. as it's simply WP:TOOSOON for this young talented player. He has many very favourable mentions in various local newspapers (see ProQuest). It's just a shame to lose all the work that already went into this article. If he does get his big break someday (or just more focused coverage as an Exeter City player), maybe we could get the article refunded as draft. Cielquiparle ( talk) 18:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per KatoKungLee.-- Echetus Xe 14:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Draftify, player just made debut in team that gets high coverage.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 05:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Changed my !vote above to redirect to Exeter City F.C.. By redirecting, we preserve the page history which can easily be recovered if/when Joe O'Connor's career takes off and there is enough significant coverage for a standalone Wikipedia article. But as promising as he is...I'm not convinced this will happen in the next six months, so instead of kicking the can down the road by draftifying...why not just redirect for now. Cielquiparle ( talk) 06:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect or delete. GNG coverage has not been established. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There is consensus that this currently doesn't pass GNG. As there is no indication when this might change, I see no good reason to draftify. If and when this meets GNG in future, the current article can be restored by any admin Randykitty ( talk) 09:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Mitch Beardmore

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

A web search finds passing mentions. The only article that comes close to WP:SIGCOV is [16] which includes a lot of quotes from Exeter's manager but very little specifically about Beardmore. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on ( talk) 09:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Draftify, player just made his debut in highly covered league.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 05:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. There is consensus that this currently doesn't pass GNG. As there is no indication when this might change, I see no good reason to draftify. If and when this meets GNG in future, the current article can be restored by any admin Randykitty ( talk) 09:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Harrison King

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

A web search finds passing mentions but no WP:SIGCOV. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on ( talk) 08:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • 30 of those appearances were in the non-professional seventh tier of English football. But it's irrelevant, what counts is whether the article meets WP:GNG. Robby.is.on ( talk) 12:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. There is consensus that this currently doesn't pass GNG. As there is no indication when this might change, I see no good reason to draftify. If and when this meets GNG in future, the current article can be restored by any admin. Randykitty ( talk) 08:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Gabriel Billington

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

A web search finds passing mentions. The only article that comes close to WP:SIGCOV is [17]. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on ( talk) 08:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Draftfy, the player will likely pass GNG soon as they just made their pro debut in a highly covered league.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 05:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Draftify - player likely to become notable in near future, however not notable as not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG at the moment. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 00:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Zack (Battlestar Galactica)

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

Two one-sentence sections make up the whole article. It is framed as a disambiguation page, but neither character has an article. Additionally, it has zero sources. There is no reason to keep this. QuicoleJR ( talk) 19:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. QuicoleJR ( talk) 19:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not enough reliable coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. A bare stub with no hope of expansion that meets our policies. Shooterwalker ( talk) 20:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and merge to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. There is no reason for the (albeit very little) information to be lost, so merging would be good. Also, redirecting means that it on the future someone could potentially start the page again with lots of sources and real world info. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 22:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and merge. I'm surprised this article has even stuck around this long. Surprisingly, he's not listed in the original continuity there, so that might be worth adding, but aside from that no information is really being lost here from removing it. Pokelego999 ( talk) 01:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect or delete. Weird, I thought I did a pass of BG's articles few years back. How did I miss this? Haven't seen an article that bad here for quite a while. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not even a single wikipedia article links here. Orphaned, aparently insignificant even in-universe. – sgeureka t• c 13:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 23:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Clinton body count conspiracy theory

Clinton body count conspiracy theory (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was redirected in 2016. Is an article about a conspiracy theory that is unlikely to be true. From the article:

Several sources have discredited the conspiracy theory, such as Congressional Record,[11] the Lakeland Ledger, the Chicago Tribune, Snopes and others; pointing to detailed death records, the unusually large circle of associates that a president is likely to have, and the fact that many of the people listed had been misidentified or were still alive. Others had no known link to the Clintons

. p b p 19:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Its a widely referenced conspiracy theory. The wiki documents it and the debunking and the first sentence says its not true. The Clinton body count is a disproven conspiracy theory Softlemonades ( talk) 19:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- just because a conspiracy theory isn't true doesn't mean it's not notable. That this one is is shown clearly by the sources already in the article. Central and Adams ( talk) 20:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep look at all the new deaths, the theory may not be disproven, just not accepted yet. 75.169.169.36 ( talk) 02:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • redirect to List of conspiracy theories#Clintons which could be expanded a bit naming some of the most commonly claimed "victims" but which already says about what this article says in a very short paragraph. Mangoe ( talk) 21:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are plenty of sources showing the conspiracy theory's notability ( WP:NFRINGE). Isi96 ( talk) 00:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Archery at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's individual. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Soha Abed Elaal

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

Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Her only achievement is that she competed in the 2008 Summer Olympics. There are also no Reliable Sources about her. Charsaddian ( talk) 18:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Archery at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's individual. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Khadija Abbouda

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

Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Her only achievement is that she competed in the 2008 Summer Olympics. There are also no Reliable Sources about her. Charsaddian ( talk) 18:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. While editors arguing for keep were not able to provide citations to coverage that meets GNG, they identified multiple valid reasons for why sources may exist despite being hard to access and argued that it meets WP:NEVENT criteria. signed, Rosguill talk 02:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

MEDICA Trade Fair

MEDICA Trade Fair (  | talk | history | 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 conference, only sourcing found is primary. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - this thing is huge. It's spread over 15 exhibit halls. The best way to comprehend the magnitude is to look at the satellite image. It's held at the Messe Düsseldorf, one of the few places in the world big enough to hold it. The Las Vegas Convention Center is the only venue in North America bigger than Messe Düsseldorf. MEDICA's the biggest healthcare show/gathering in the world. 5,000+ companies have exhibits there. When COVID's not around, almost 100,000 people from around the world attend.
That's not nothin' -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 21:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 21:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Warning: independent refs are challenging to find. My experience so far:
  • German newspaper articles cited in the German article are mostly behind paywalls. Sorry, I don't care enough to pay.
  • 5,000 companies all issue press releases touting what they're bringing to the show. These clutter a Google News search.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 21:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Faithbooking

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

There are 3 citations on this article:

  • A book titled "The therapist's notebook for integrating spirituality in counseling". This looks like a very serious book, and I think it is, but according to google books it contains the word "faithbook" nowhere.
  • I can't find a copy of "100 Creative Activities for Sabbath" but it was written by an author who seems to churn out list-of-activity books. Doesn't seem particularly reliable.
  • I also can't find a copy of Pages of Faith: The Art of Spiritual Scrapbooking where this neologism no doubt originates, but this article also seems to have been created pretty shortly after the book was published.

In summary, I think this fails WP:NOTNEO BrigadierG ( talk) 17:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete -- per nom. No RS discuss this term, only random blogs. NOTNEO is exactly the right reason to deep six this fluff. Central and Adams ( talk) 20:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agree with both of the above, and the article is furthermore loaded with WP:OR. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 20:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I tend toward inclusionism and even I can't find a shred of reason for this article to exist. It ticks boxes for all the greatest hits: NN, NEO, OR and maybe PROMO. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 18:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Devoke water 10:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Michael Van Praet

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG, and he apparently has not played professional football for the CFL or NFL. PK T(alk) 17:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Anchordown

Anchordown (  | talk | history | 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 valid citations to confirm notability. ZimZalaBim talk 16:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Unsourced and unverifiable. I couldn't find anything with a cursory web search, save for the usual non-usable primary sources like Bandcamp and Youtube. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 20:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Francoforte

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

Same as the previous reasoning at the AfD less than a month ago which resulted in a "soft delete" decision. References fail to meet GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Article was restored but not worked on, no improvements. HighKing ++ 16:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Zim Afro T10

Zim Afro T10 (  | talk | history | 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 cricket competition, appearing on the WP:OFFICIALCRICKET list of tournaments considered non-notable (T10 cricket matches). Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. StickyWicket aka AA ( talk) 12:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - Zim Afro T10 is probably fastest T10 league, with players from most ICC member countries. Also TV broadcasters exist from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, UK, Caribbean, Zimbabe among others. The tournament has already started and it was a great success. The article is very outdated currently. In fact, I came here to learn more about tournament and the teams, so there must be an audience to whom this article would serve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leghari k ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - This is a new tournament which is going to start soon. Many well-known Zimbabwen players like Sikander Raza, Craig Ervine, Sean Williams are playing in the league. Many foreign players from test status countries like Taskin, Mushfiq, Robin Uthapa, Yusuf Pathan many more are playing. Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt bought Harare Hurricanes team in the league. It’s a notable upcoming cricket league. Jit Saha255 ( talk) 19:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - This is similar to the Abu Dhabi T10 and the several pages of this tournament that exist. Zimbabwe is a full member and the League has several if not all the players from full member organization. 166.198.21.8 ( talk) 12:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I'll just note that this article was originally a simple redirect to T10 cricket#Zim Afro T10. GreekApple123 ( talk) 16:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is support for Keep and Redirection. Please take a moment and evaluate new sources to see if they can contribute to notabiiity for a stand-alone article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • The article has three sources, one of which is perfectly fine, one of which appears primary, and one of which appears to be a press release. Given it hasn't started yet and needs only one more source, either redirecting, draftifying, or finding an additional source are all valid options here. SportingFlyer T· C 20:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • We might want to consider merging either to or from 2023 Zim Afro T10 for starters - that can be recreated if we ever get a second edition (with this sort of league this is far from certain). It primarily contains scorecards which are basically statsdumps from external links and pretty much fail most things without prose to place them in context. I've gutted both articles of the trivia and so on and there's not a huge amount left. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 19:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Regardless of the outcome of this AFD, I don't believe we need a season article for every season. Depending on the outcome of this AFD, I will be nominating that article for deletion or merging (depending on whether this article is deleted or kept). Just because an event may have multiple seasons, that doesn't mean we need a season article for every season of this tournament. The tournament itself is struggling to demonstrate notability, so each season definitely won't have enough coverage to independently pass WP:GNG. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's probably a waste of time, considering that we do allow pages on seasons, and the additional sources that have been added to this since I commented ten days ago clearly pass WP:GNG, showing the season article probably passes WP:GNG as well. We can merge in a year if this only has one season. SportingFlyer T· C 12:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect The redirect seems better, it's almost TOOSOON at this point. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The references seem to indicate that it passes WP:GNG. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 10:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Now clearly passes WP:GNG after updates. SportingFlyer T· C 12:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep seems to pass WP:GNG. Not sure about the season article, but this seems to be a reasonable keep, bearing WP:WORLDWIDE in mind and the fact that it seems to have received coverage from a range of sources. Park3r ( talk) 01:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

AlphaPets

AfDs for this article:
AlphaPets (  | talk | history | 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 has been unsourced since 2009, and I could not find any more good sources. QuicoleJR ( talk) 16:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was deleted by Bbb23 as a G3‎. ( non-admin closure) Heavy Water ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Gaz Adele 2130

Gaz Adele 2130 (  | talk | history | 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 significant biography, no references, seemingly self written or written by a friend -- NotCharizard 🗨 15:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Enos733 ( talk) 17:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Immanuel Ness

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

Paid for promo/COI. He has a very low citations count. There is no way he meets WP:GNG. Oluwatoniyi ( talk) 15:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 28. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 15:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Colorado, and New York. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I see evidence of Ness passing GNG in the citations. Fix the COI issues, keep the article.-- User:Namiba 19:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think it is probably a keep based on potentially as an author passing WP:NAUTHOR combined with his work as editor of some journals. They are oxford university press journals, quite low but it its a low citations field. I think there is more than enough to pass WP:GNG. The article needs about 20 hours worth of work to clean to references and add additional references. There is bits of it that are cited to single refs and don't cover it properly per WP:V. The image of Ness, he looks like "Death warmed up". Perhaps a better image? scope_creep Talk 08:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: passes WP:NAUTHOR for having reviews of his academic books, and I would say also passes WP:NPROF on the grounds of being the editor of several encyclopedias. -- asilvering ( talk) 01:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep his edited scholarly books are important--he succeeds in bringing together lots of established scholars writing essays for his encyclopedic multivolume worked on major topics. Rjensen ( talk) 06:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Baltar. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ( talk) 16:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Baltar (Battlestar Galactica)

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

Unsourced OR combination of two characters who are similar but not the same. Additionally, the characters are already covered elsewhere. QuicoleJR ( talk) 15:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. QuicoleJR ( talk) 15:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. No evidence of independent notability. WJ94 ( talk) 16:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The nom is nonsensical--since when is it OR to discuss together two characters from two retellings of one story? It's not in dispute that both Baltars are notable characters, just whether or not this is a good summation of the two separate but similarly named characters. But does any RS treat the disparate characters as a subject worthy of comparison and contrast? Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy: Knowledge Here Begins Out There, by Jason Eberl, ISBN 9781444356571, appears to... but I ran out of preview pages before I got to the next-to-last chapter where I think it does. It's entirely worthwhile to cite both character sketches in this combination from the RS in their respective articles, but I don't see a policy-based reason for deleting this. Jclemens ( talk) 00:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    1. Both Baltars being notable is definitely in dispute, seeing as Count Baltar just had an AFD that closed as merge.
    2. I do not see how this is not a redundant CFORK of Gaius Baltar and Count Baltar/ List of Battlestar Galactica characters.
    3. One book is not enough to prove that the concept is notable.
    QuicoleJR ( talk) 01:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    1. Rather poor form of you to not mention a related AfD that appears to have been closed within a day prior to your starting this one. Obviously, I missed it, because this article would have been a better merge target.
    2. The fact that you are ignorant of WP:SS as an organizational technique is easily rectified; by all means, go read about it.
    3. One book is enough to demonstrate that your BEFORE was lacking and the topic merits further investigation and discussion. Jclemens ( talk) 06:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Convert to a dab page with two entries. There's no need to regurgitated plot details and actors' names. Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the bigger disambig as linked above. No need for this sub-disambig that clearly has mutated into a very poor article. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Baltar; unnecessary glorified DAB page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 11:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to DAB where this is already covered in a more organized way. As is, this is just a poorer DAB, with no hope of expansion into a properly sourced article. Shooterwalker ( talk) 00:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 15:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Jabhat Ansar Al Sham

Jabhat Ansar Al Sham (  | talk | history | 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 does not meet guidelines to be published to Wikipedia, including non-encyclopedic material and lack of citations. A draft already exists. Significa liberdade ( talk) 14:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Syria. Kpg jhp jm 16:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Article is very poorly written . a quick search brings up some mentions of groups of the same name and ones related to it but no real WP:SIGCOV. Kpg jhp jm 16:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    If this was 2015-2017 you could find on there website but in these times the world wws focused on isis not new rebel groups fighting against assad Libya345433 ( talk) 18:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: Bit of an unsourced, atrociously written trainwreck. Even if this group exists, and a page supported with reliable sources could be produced, this is so from what that would look like that it's an obvious case of WP:TNT. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
for 1 they do exist 2 its my first edit Libya345433 ( talk) 18:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
the draft i made is unfinished unlike the page i made Libya345433 ( talk) 18:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
For future reference, when a draft is ready to be published to the mainspace, you'll want to use Wikipedia's Move feature (see WP:Drafts#Moving drafts to mainspace. If moved, the draft will automatically be deleted. In a situation like this, having that draft deleted means we would be able to move the current article back into the draft space instead of deleting it. Significa liberdade ( talk) 20:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
so the jabhat Ansar Al Sham page isnt getting deleted? Libya345433 ( talk) 20:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
That is yet to be decided. At present, the article is being proposed for deletion for not meeting the standards of a Wikipedia article. If the present article is deleted, the draft would still exist. While the discussion is occurring, you can continue to make changes to the article to improve it and prove it is worthwhile to exist as a Wikipedia article. Significa liberdade ( talk) 22:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Unsourced, filled with BLP violations, as written it would be more work to fix than to start over, agree with TNT suggestion.  //  Timothy ::  talk  21:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    i would rather try to fix than to start over Libya345433 ( talk) 22:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    and its perfect the way it is people can edit to make it better but its correct the way i did it wnd why put my other page (Islamic front in aleppo) as a draft that was perfect to i wish people would stop messing around with my stuff Libya345433 ( talk) 22:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Libya345433: As others have noted here and on your talk page, these articles are not perfect. The biggest issue right now is that this page, as well as your Islamic front in aleppo page, are completely unsourced. Without sources, the pages run into multiple issues, most of which would mean the pages do not belong on Wikipedia. For instance, without references, the information on the page cannot be verified as true, and the topic cannot be confirmed as notable (important). If the page does not meet these two basic criteria, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
    Further, please note that Wikipedia is not yours. It belongs to people all over the world and is intended to be used as a free, valuable, and importantly, credible resource. Again, without references, Wikipedia loses its value and credibility.
    I hope you can understand this. Moving/deleting your pages is not a personal attack on you. We encourage you to continue editing your pages in the draft space, then submitting them for review before publishing them in the mainspace. Significa liberdade ( talk) 20:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Another very similar article from this author with the same issues here Islamic front in aleppo.  //  Timothy ::  talk  01:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Is an absolute trainwreck. Even if there was a shred of notability, it would have to be blown up. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 10:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is my first one at least leave it be dont have it deleted please Libya345433 ( talk) 04:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. signed, Rosguill talk 02:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

All India Tanzeem-e-Insaaf

All India Tanzeem-e-Insaaf (  | talk | history | 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 Wikipedia:GNG DSP2092 talk 14:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Newry City F.C.

The result was procedural keep.‎ Boldly closing this discussion as deletion is not a realistic prospect. A merge discussion at Talk:Newry City F.C. and/or Talk:Newry City A.F.C. can be started if anyone wishes to do so. ( non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 15:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply


Newry City F.C. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page is no longer necessary, given how close a resemblance the two clubs are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portsfc1887 ( talk • contribs) 08:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Notwithstanding that this AfD nomination appears to be malformed and incomplete, deletion is not cleanup. If there are two subjects with overlap, that is normally addressed with a merge. See WP:MERGEREASON (for when to consider a merge) and WP:MERGEINIT (for how to propose a merge). There is no reason to delete this title and the nom doesn't assert a policy-based rationale to do so. Keep. Guliolopez ( talk) 13:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Northern Ireland. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep - it can be a bit of a grey area when a football club goes bust and is "re-formed" as to whether the two clubs should be considered the same or separate. if they are separate, then having two articles is valid. If they are the same, then they should be merged. Either way, deleting this article is not the appropriate course of action -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 15:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Mike Robinson (environmentalist)

Mike Robinson (environmentalist) (  | talk | history | 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:BLP of an environmental campaigner, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for activists. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have articles just because they have jobs, and have to show third-party coverage and analysis about their work to establish that it's been externally validated as significant -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as his staff or contributor profiles on the self-published websites of organizations he's been directly affiliated with, and even the very few citations that lead to real WP:GNG-worthy media are not coverage about Mike Robinson, but just briefly namecheck Mike Robinson as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of sufficient media coverage to pass WP:GNG. Also there's a likely conflict of interest, as the creator's username has the initials of an organization the subject is closely associated with in it. To be fair, they complied with COI rules by creating it in draft, but then somebody else perfunctorily submitted it to the AFC queue two days ago, and then almost immediately moved it into mainspace themselves without waiting for a proper AFC review — but the fact that the COI existed in the first place still means the draft required heightened analysis by an established AFC reviewer, which can't just be bypassed like that. Bearcat ( talk) 14:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 01:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Jake Metcalfe

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. The only reference in the article does not pertain to the subject at all. A WP:BEFORE check only came up with WP:ROUTINE passing mentions from his various roles, with nothing that would pass for WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun ( talk) 13:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • This comment sums up the decline of Wikipedia in a nutshell. When this article was created in 2006, there were still people around who understood that the purpose of a biography is to credibly tell the story of someone's life. Nowadays, between running off many editors with common sense and gaslighting newbies who don't know any better, we've twisted things to where the intent of a biography is to mindlessly repeat whatever detritus one finds lying around through a Google search and nothing more. You should really take a good look at some of the articles created in recent years with that mindset, consisting of a random series of sentences connected solely by the presence of citations at the end. Many of them are an absolute embarrassment to read and serve little purpose other than to enforce the real-world perception of Wikipedia as a haven for the autistic. Here's the real BLP issue. As the opening paragraph states, "On July 30, 2007, Metcalfe announced his intention to run for Alaska's At-large congressional district in 2008". On August 7, 2007, the article received its only substantial improvement from a user whose only contributions to the project were those edits. Meanwhile, nearly 16 years has passed between those edits and today and people are still grasping for other things to blame? Unfknbelieveable! RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • 1) It's not a good look to falsely imply that the article only contains one source. I see several sources but only one properly formatted citation.
I turned them into citations so that it is easier to see what is there. I didn't make all of them complete but I think it is now possible to understand. Lamona ( talk) 02:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
2) It's not a good look to say or do nothing while someone is a candidate for office, then come back well after the fact claiming they're non-notable for the same reasons that applied back when the article served as free publicity for their campaign, yet that has occurred over and over again across the encyclopedia for years.
3) It's not a good look when philosophies which worked for years on this site are changed on a whim to satisfy those pushing a starkly black-and-white view of notability. For a long time, NPOL generally referred to statewide political leaders. He qualifies in that regard as a state chair of a major political party, an office he held at the time the article was created. There's also Category:State political party chairs of Alaska and we tell people that categories reflect defining characteristics of notability. In the context of Alaska, the Anchorage School Board is a major office. Anchorage School District enrollment has comprised about five to eight percent of Alaska's entire population in recent decades. School board members in Anchorage serve areawide, which means his constituency consisted of eight times more people than a state senator. Are you telling me that's irrelevant because of whatever one-size-fits-all view Wikipedians have about particular titles? Without giving serious regard to what makes a biography a biography (as someone mentioned to you in another AFD, WP:ROUTINE has nothing to do with biographies), you turn this project into a directory of holders of titles. WP:NOTDIR is a policy, whereas the pages you refer to above are only guidelines. Last I checked, we're supposed to give more weight to something if it's a policy. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Metcalfe is mentioned in passing in the context of routine events, which is the point I was aiming to make, although I admit I could've made it better. The last time I saw, wikipedia is not a textbook, and if you want NPOL to include school board members, make a proposal in the appropriate channels. Let'srun ( talk) 01:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete nothing we can use for notability, as explained above. Old article, different times when it was created. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I dug up some articles and left links at Talk:Jake Metcalfe. I had to quit before I could read them all. I think any notability will come from his being a long-time political fixture in Juneau and a powerful labor leader, not a failed election campaign. A major player at the capitol from the way it looked to me.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 10:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for digging up the articles, A. B.. I looked at all of the ones that weren't paywalled, and in each case it was a brief mention of Metcalfe in an article about someone else. There is nothing that I see that is better than the sources in the article, and those don't support GNG in my opinion. All of what we have about him is routine reporting on his time in office. I'm going with delete but will check back in case someone finds a gem. Lamona ( talk) 23:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors more or less agree that specific coverage of the subject doesn't quite meet GNG, and that relevant information can be included in myriad other articles about Russian relations with the countries of the Arab League. signed, Rosguill talk 02:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Arab League–Russia relations

Arab League–Russia 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)

WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH. Random WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" table data dump was already removed per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables. What remains does not really amount to anything: we've got a map, we've got an old 2009 picture of RF ex-president Medvedev and AL ex-sec-gen Moussa, we've got a completely WP:UNSOURCED and irrelevant section about the "Russian-Arab Business Council" that has nothing to do with the Arab League, but is instead a combo of 18 bilateral business councils of Russia with 18 Arab states (so not even all 22 member states of the Arab League), then a random See also section, then some more external links WP:PROMO for the irrelevant business councils, and some guy's WordPress blog, then two templates and two categories. That's it. This isn't an article. It's random vague stuff lumped together. In theory it is a legitimate topic, but we should WP:TNT this because the current mess isn't worth anyone's consideration. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 21:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Unsourced. Walks and talks like WP:SYNTH. Yilloslime ( talk) 18:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment After doing more research on this topic I found a Middle East Monitor article on the league's ambassador to Russia regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2019 and from the Pressenza IPA from April 2022 where Lavrov held a meeting with Arab States members. Russia in the past has lobbied for Syria's return to the Arab League where articles can be found on the subject. But I doubt this is enough to meet the sources and notability requirements to have this article stay as is. If this is deleted, then I have no problem with it regardless of my keep vote. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 21:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. While it provides some information on Russia-Arab League relations and the Russian-Arab Business Council, it lacks sufficient depth and breadth to justify its own page. The information could be more appropriately included as part of the broader articles on Russian foreign relations or the activities of the Arab League. 多少 战场 龙 ( talk) 13:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 draftify‎. Something with zero entries is obviously not a list, this is clearly a placeholder so per nom draft is the appropriate location. (non-admin closure) Reywas92 Talk 15:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Michelin starred restaurants in Colorado

List of Michelin starred restaurants in Colorado (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of Michelin starred restaurants in Atlanta (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two WP:TOOSOON lists placeholding for future content, but listing nothing at all as of today. It was recently announced that these regions will be getting Michelin Guide ratings for their restaurant scenes, but neither of them already have any restaurants rated yet as of today, so these lists both just go TBD right down the line.
Obviously they will become perfectly appropriate once the restaurants and their ratings are actually announced, and it would be perfectly valid to hold on to them as draft or sandbox pages in the meantime, but they aren't already needed in mainspace now. Creating mainspace articles is not difficult enough that we would need to maintain boilerplate placeholders weeks or months in advance of any actual content for them. Bearcat ( talk) 13:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 13:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

CP 009 Évidemment

CP 009 Évidemment (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article about a song, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NSONGS. As always, every song is not automatically entitled to its own standalone Wikipedia article just because it exists, and has to have notability claims (charting, awards, coverage and analysis about the song in media, etc.) and reliable sourcing to support that -- but existence is the only notability claim being attempted here, and no referencing is cited at all. Bearcat ( talk) 13:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to Reasonability. Star Mississippi 13:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Reasonableness

Reasonableness (  | talk | history | 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 seems very vague, and covers too many different contexts. I can see a merge request with Reasonability on the page, but am not 100% sure if this is the best course of action. Would appreciate further input. GnocchiFan ( talk) 13:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per WP:NOTDICT, and the reasonability article along with it. If anyone can find secondary sources that discuss the concept of reasonableness in the context of other legal constructs then I could see the point of the article, but not in its current form. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 14:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, I do see a few legitimate sources in the article, maybe it could be renamed Reasonableness (legal norm). Alaexis ¿question? 14:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Law, and Politics. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, as creator of the former. The concepts of reasonableness / reasonability are core to modern political theory and jurisprudence, and also have distinct uses in criminal, administrative, contract and constitutional law. As for "vagueness" and WP:NOTDICT - see WP:BROAD, and compare with articles like Justice, Rationality and Morality, and with Fairness - which is tagged for article creation, rather than deletion. François Robere ( talk) 14:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Rename + merge Agree that Reasonability should be merged with. The concept appears everywhere in the law and across legal systems, maybe can give a proper scope with something like The concept/principle of reasonableness in law (avoid parentheses as it is not really disambiguation as such?). Selfstudier ( talk) 14:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Selfstudier: How do you propose we deal with the concept of reasonableness in political science, which underlies some of its legal uses? François Robere ( talk) 15:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I wouldn't personally, except to the extent that an allusion to it might fit somewhere in an article dealing with the purely legal aspects. Unlike the principal topic where the concept is bounded in practice, I doubt there is much to say there that is similarly constrained eg discussing what does reasonableness even mean? Selfstudier ( talk) 16:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Alexy (in Reasonableness and Law, 2009) starts with the statement that "in order to be able to say what the reasonableness of law is, one has to know what “reasonableness” in general means" (curiously, he provides no clear answer). He then proceeds to discuss the meanings of "reasonableness" in political science, then in jurisprudence. I wouldn't say one is more ambiguous or exact ("constrained") than the other, and they certainly overlap in the definitional and normative parts; I think we should cover these two as theoretical background, otherwise we'd be left with a few gaping holes around the question of "what exactly is 'reasonableness' and where did it come from". Incidentally, Rawls is mentioned in that book roughly 287 times, and it's not the only source that ties the two subjects (just from a cursory look, we also have Hevia (2013), Zipursky (2015), and Mangini (2018)), so there's obviously some discussion to be had there. François Robere ( talk) 18:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    curiously, he provides no clear answer Right, because in general it is a philosophical question. I still think it is better to have a page primarily on the legal aspects and without disambiguation. Should someone want to try and make a page out of the (many) other aspects of reasonableness ("How Can I Tell If My Algorithm Was Reasonable" below, for instance) that's doable too but then I don't think there is a concept/principle/standard that is as easy to get one's hands around as it is for the law, which is already tricky enough. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Rename + merge per Selfstudier. Reasonable is a very very common concept in law and can have quite specific legal definitions dependent upon case law. Talpedia 15:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and merge per above. The definition of reasonability is quite complex in a legal context and involves a number of legal concepts. Some articles that touch upon the notion of reasonableness include Man on the Clapham omnibus, A moron in a hurry, Person having ordinary skill in the art, Prudent man rule, Objective standard (law), Reasonable person, Duty of care. Dawkin Verbier ( talk) 15:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Merge to Reasonability: I think there may be a good reason to keep this page around given the 2023 Israeli judicial reform#Abolition of "unreasonableness" grounds centering on this legal concept. Adding a section on the concept of Reasonableness in Israeli would resolve the DICTDEF issue, make the article more encyclopedic, and distinguish it from the redirect nominations presented. Also, for full disclosure, I am a lawyer so that may be affecting my vote. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 16:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Just a particular case, probably comes from British law in the first instance, there are a few things in Israeli legal system coming from there; "unreasonableness" is just propspeak, the concept (or standard) is still reasonableness. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's fair and I'll change my vote. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 17:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep/Merge with Reasonability. Agree that we don't need both pages, but reasonability as a legal concept is incredibly ubiquitous and important. There are tons of secondary sources discussing this concept in relation to law - below are just a few from academic journals in the last decade:
    • Kevin P. Tobia, How People Judge What Is Reasonable, 70 Ala. L. Rev. 293 (2018)
    • Alan Calnan, The Nature of Reasonableness, 105 Cornell L. Rev. Online 81 (2020)
    • Brian Sheppard, The Reasonableness Machine, 62 B.C. L. Rev. 2259 (2021)
    • Karni A. Chagal-Feferkorn, How Can I Tell If My Algorithm Was Reasonable?, 27 Mich. Tech. L. Rev. 213 (2021)
    • Benjamin C. Zipursky, Reasonableness in and Out of Negligence Law, 163 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2131 (2015)
Legal search engines ( WestLaw, LexisNexis) return tens of thousands of results just among secondary sources (direct links are difficult because West charges an arm and a leg and sometimes the articles are otherwise paywalled). I don't think the name matters much, (Reasonableness, Reasonability, Reasonable (legal norm/concept/maxim), etc.) but the substance of the current Reasonableness page should be kept in one place or another. Kalethan ( talk) 16:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and split and disambiguate. The legal concept satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. The article is not a mere definition, and therefore does not violate WP:NOT. "Reasonableness" is the WP:COMMONNAME of the legal concept. Reasonability should be merged into the article on the legal concept. The political concept should be WP:SPLIT to a separate article. Some of the sources in the article are not the best available or the best starting point for the legal concept. The best place to look for the legal concept is periodical articles about law (rather than politics or philosophy): [30] [31]. That confirms that there are a large number of entire periodical articles about the legal concept, including, amongst many others, [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. The coverage in those articles satisfies GNG and goes far beyond a definition. That establishes that GNG is satisfied and the article does not violate NOT. For the avoidance of doubt, reasonableness is a single concept. The fact that is used in other (compound) concepts does not change that. The fact that it is possible to speak of a "reasonable time" does not mean that either Time or Reasonableness is "just a word". The fact that it is possible to speak of a "reasonable person" does not mean that either Person or Reasonableness is "just a word". And so on. This AfD nomination is like saying that we should get rid of the article Time because it possible to speak of proper time, daylight saving time, unix time, reasonable time, planck time and a multitude of other times. James500 ( talk) 20:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 13:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hasan Al Moustafa

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

Created at a time when notability standards were much lower. No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC from the references provided. Best I can find in Indian football coverage is Indian Sports News, a trivial mention, and Sportskeeda, which only mentions him twice. Best source I can find in Arabic is Kooora, a database source, which doesn't confer notability. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to E.A.T. (TV program)#Hosts. ( non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie ( talk) 01:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Carren Eistrup

Carren Eistrup (  | talk | history | 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:BIO RMXY ( talk) 10:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗ plicit 01:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The Entertainer (The Belle Stars song)

The Entertainer (The Belle Stars song) (  | talk | history | 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 do not think this meets the criteria for WP:NSONG as it appears to have virtually no coverage online from any notable sources. It also appears to have only barely charted in one country. Yellowfrog81 ( talk) 18:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Don't have time to look through all of them, but the Internet Archive has a long list of potential sources which could be of use to this article. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 05:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Hello,
I looked through the sources on the Internet Archive and it seems that most of them only list very basic information about the song (e.g. "The Belle Stars came out with a new single called "The Entertainer"") and do not discuss it in depth. I only found one article which provides a description of the song's music video, but I do not believe that information would give the Wikipedia article adequate substance. Yellowfrog81 ( talk) 21:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed, no opinions have need voiced
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 06:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. Analog coverage issue here, but signs point toward it meeting GNG.
    1. From the article, [44]
    2. A bit of SIGCOV about how the band was glad to work with a woman producer who let them play their own instruments resulting in this single. [45]
    3. Here is a blog quoting a review of the single in a magazine [46]. Here's another blog that suggest the issue of that magazine it was printed in. [47] Seems pretty likely this review exists.
    4. "Visual coverage" where where a youth magazine published the lyrics with a photo and some art [48]
— siro χ o 05:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Rough consensus is that WP:NOTNEWS applies: not everything that's in the news is encyclopedic. This can change if the person or the case get sustained, substantial and high-quality media coverage. Sandstein 08:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Barbie Kardashian case

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

Seems to be a BLP1E behind a "case" moniker. Passing similarity to another case, notable or not does not affect this article. — siro χ o 08:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: badly written for sure. This article should focus on the case itself instead of being a shell to the "Barbie Kardashian" person. That said, I am not sure how well does WP:BLP1E apply here. If we treat it as a case, then it has some notability (the spectator.co.uk source is not reliable, but we may also consider independent.ie, or the local source limerickleader.ie). -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 09:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I would also be open to TNT, since the title could be notable. It is the content that really needs some re-work. TheLonelyPather ( talk) 12:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
You're welcome to improve it by reworking it. Jim 2 Michael ( talk) 18:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm not personally seeing how WP:GNG, WP:CRIMINAL, WP:NOTNEWS or WP:LASTING are met here. Notwithstanding that it is unclear what "case" is the subject of the article (the person's conviction or the question about place of incarceration?), this article only seems to exist on the basis of run-of-the-mill reporting (which we might find for any crime/conviction) and possible WP:OSE/ WP:INHERIT stretches to connect with the more high-profile (and hence notable) Scottish "case". (In short, yes there is/was coverage of this person's conviction/incarceration, but how does it rise to the level that exceeds the threshold(s) expected by NCRIMINAL/NOTNEWS/LASTING/1E?). Guliolopez ( talk) 14:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because, like the Isla Bryson case - which no-one has suggested deleting - it's notable & reliably sourced. They've both been discussed & reported internationally, as well as commented on by political leaders. It's far from run-of-the-mill. BK isn't notable, nor are her crimes or sentence. However, her imprisonment & the reaction to it is. A journalist asked Leo Varadkar about the case. There's a petition to move BK because many people say she should be imprisoned with men rather than women, due to her being biologically male & retaining her male genitals. Were BK a cisgender man or cisgender woman, there'd be no notability to the case. Jim 2 Michael ( talk) 21:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Sources are not sufficient in number or quality to show that this passes GNG or BLP1E. Rab V ( talk) 02:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
How many sources does the article need? Jim 2 Michael ( talk) 18:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The petition to remove BK from the women's section of the prison has existed since 2020. Does that count as coverage? Jim 2 Michael ( talk) 18:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Is Change.org a reliable source? – RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ ( 💬 •  📝) 18:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
It's not the only notable source. The article includes refs from The Irish Times & the Irish Examiner. Jim 2 Michael ( talk) 19:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Trevor Purt

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

Only 1 article links to this. Coverage merely confirms roles he's held or statements he's said representing his employer and not WP:SIGCOV. There are elements of an WP:ATTACK page with the controversies section. LibStar ( talk) 05:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Article's creator, Rathfelder was indefinitely community-banned] for multiple abuses, including creating attack BLPs where they had a conflict of interest. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 04:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Based on this and the fact the creator's COI was in the same subject area, I think the way forward (as per WP:ATTACK) would be to reduce this page to a stub - removing all of the tangentially connected information about the controversies linked to the subject. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 12:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete this was an attack page, nothing we should be keeping. Hardly notable, he said stuff people didn't like. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - currently appears to be a minor C-suite executive in a fairly minor corporation. Previously a senior NHS executive. Neither, as far as I can tell, give sufficient notability. It is claimed that he has a university title (Professor) but I have not been able to verify that this is more than a visiting/honorary title. Other than that, there are fairly local controversies relating to previous public sector jobs. I can't see that any of this amounts to much. JMWt ( talk) 08:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete While the coverage is borderline on WP:BASIC, I think the BLP issues especially with respect to the creator mean it's worth deleting history instead of trying to recover something from this. — siro χ o 09:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Brunei–Spain relations

AfDs for this article:
Brunei–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)

Last AfD was kept on the basis of keep !voters saying relations exist and sources would be available, I find no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of these relations. The article is still largely based on a primary source. LibStar ( talk) 05:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Per lack of significant coverage. Yilloslime ( talk) 15:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Many of the keep !votes in the last AfD were based off of the fact that relations exist, which doesn't necessarily mean notability. Some of the keep !votes mentioned a war between Spain and Brunei in 1578, however as Curbon7 said at that AfD, there has been little diplomatic interaction since. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 23:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Dead man's hand in popular culture

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

Effectively another list of works that mention topic foo, here, list of works that mention dead man's hand, violating WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, MOS:TRIVIA, WP:IPC and WP:NOTTVTROPES, in descending order of issues faced ( WP:V too I guess, given lack of footnotes for most stuff here). Some of the stuff is not even clearly related like "Big Boss Brewing in Raleigh, NC, brews a beer called "Aces and Ates."" I doubt any of that trivia merits merger to Dead man's hand, but perhaps a SOFTDELETE redirect could be implemented (sadly, that article doesn't even has a stubby section on this topic, unless one considers the legacy section there, about the use of the related symbols by some American police departments, as such - but that section there is based on primary sources, so hey, did I mentioned WP:OR yet? Sigh). This mess probably needs WP:TNT, and I am not sure a rewrite on Wikipedia is possible - this is probably something best left to https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeadMansHand for now, I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Popular culture, Lists, and United States of America. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: "... In popular culture" articles that are pure lists need to die out. There is no encyclopedic information to be gleaned here. The fact that some songs reference a famous thing is not a reason for there to be an article about those references. Why? I Ask ( talk) 06:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If someone can think up with a way to trim, merge, and make the list fit the main article without violating the list of policies and guidelines the nom listed, I will support it, but right now the list is unfortunately a mess and will need WP:TNT. Ping me if anything comes up. — siro χ o 06:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete needs WP:TNT as the majority is not verified and therefore is just assertion by the editor(s) who wrote it. Seems unlikely to me that independent sources could be found to cite all this trivia. JMWt ( talk) 08:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nothing but mostly unsourced trivia, no usable information here. Completely non-encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't know how it can be trimmed or merged. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 16:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As article creator way back, I created it to move the trivia temptation away from the important article because I hate trivia in here. However, I fear it will just find a new home back in the article. I guess we can try to keep it out as best we can. I have no problem trashing this article. I also did the same to the John Wesley Hardin and Bloody Mary (folklore) articles. (Did I mention I really hate trivia in an encyclopedia?) They can die, too, while we're at it. GenQuest "scribble" 17:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOTTVTROPES Dronebogus ( talk) 14:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thomas Pastor

Thomas Pastor (  | talk | history | 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 spiritual leader/person. Sourcing is almost nothing in RS, only hits are on his name for other people. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm working with this individual to improve the page, I've linked him from the Kwan Um School of Zen Wikipedia page. What does RS mean? Thank you for your time! Binkybonker ( talk) 16:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I will comment on your talk page about your question. - Aoidh ( talk) 17:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The article has no independent third-party sources, all being either directly affiliated with the individual or being interviews with the individual. I could not find any independent reliable sources online either; it doesn't help that both "Thomas Pastor" and "Ji Haeng" are names for many other people, meaning the search results for those names are full of other unrelated individuals. - Aoidh ( talk) 17:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • To add to the existing evidence

The page cites Thomas Pastor as the founder of the Zen Center of Las Vegas. However, the Zen Center of Las Vegas Wiki page does not list Thomas Pastor as the founder, but an entirely different monk. Is it one or the other? is it both?

Taizan Maezumi is cited as the founder of the Zen Center of Las Vegas (linked via Thomas Pastor page) yet Taizan Maezumi does not appear in Thomas Pastor page. Either these two did not know each other and the practices are different and should not be linked, or it's the same practice and they should be refered.

User:Tinndalos — Preceding undated comment added 05:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Little evidence of notability. None of the sources cited is independent of the subject while having extensive discussion of him, except possibly no. 14, which gave me a 404. (sources 1 and 4 are duplicates, as are 9 and 12.) Maproom ( talk) 22:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Maproom: Here is an archived copy of that reference, which is just a trivial mention that says the individual's name and what day they would be teaching at the retreat, which means it's not an independent source even if it wasn't a trivial mention. - Aoidh ( talk) 03:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comments: First, the photograph looks as if it was made with the cooperation of its subject. The photographer was Sanch1161, who was also the creator of this article. Is there perhaps a conflict of interest? Secondly, the article Thomas Pastor leads the reader to Kwan Um School of Zen, which has a gallery, from which we arrive at articles on Soenghyang, Dae Kwang, Wu Kwang, Bon Yeon and other figures whose notability isn't at all obvious to me -- and also to an article on Wubong, from which we learn such nuggets as "Zen practice [...] gives us the attainment of truth and a clear direction" and that the subject "left his body" at such and such a time: not, I think, "encyclopedic" material. -- Hoary ( talk) 07:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
{{Keep | [The significance of this page rests mainly on the fact that the subject is the last American to have been named a lineage holder by Suengsahn before his death. Suengsahn was noted for bringing Korean Buddhism to America. Locating suitable citations to support this article are mainly due to the age of the subject matter. The Americans given transmission from Seungsahn tended to be post beat generation poets, artists and professors but their work was vastly pre-internet. I have found additional citations for the subject including a feature in A Love Supreme: The Story of John Coltrane's Signature Album. Elvin Jones. Penguin Books.p. 157, an article about the subject in International Musician (back copy) as well as a feature in NPR’s Desert Companion and have added. The subject has multiple interviews including The Review Journal (largest Las Vegas newspaper est. 1908) as well as the Sun which are respectable, but it will take additional time to source additional journal citations given the pre-internet nature of when he was most active. ] }} MFoskett ( talk) 22:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC) — MFoskett ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
To demonstrate notability, a subject must meet one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, such as WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:NARTIST, WP:NBAND, et cetera. Receiving transmission, whatever the circumstances, is not a demonstration of notability for the purposes of Wikipedia. The sources that were added such as the Desert Companion are interviews which are not independent sources since all of the relevant information in those interviews is from the individual himself. The article as written and from what I could find online and in databases like WP:TWL and Newspapers.com/ NewspaperArchive does not show notability. - Aoidh ( talk) 22:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie ( talk) 01:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Didine Canon 16

Didine Canon 16 (  | talk | history | 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 musical performer. Not meeting anything for musical notability, no charted singles, no awards won. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Greetings everyone! I hope you're all doing well. Since this is my first time in this kind of discussion, I'm not entirely sure where the appropriate place to post this is. If my message is in the wrong section, please feel free to move it to the suitable one.
__
I've made updates to the articles by adding various sources. There are 16 local sources, including Ennahar and others, as well as international press like " Radio France" and " Egypt Today." The content mainly revolves around a rapper, who has achieved significant success. His YouTube channel has garnered over a billion views, and he's also dominating the top charts on platforms like Spotify and Deezer in the North African region. Additionally, he has acted in a successful series, and he is working with Netflix to produce a new series around his story.
When discussing awards, it's essential to consider the context of the African continent. Unlike the United States, where rap is a major industry with numerous awards and festivals, Africa doesn't have such events until now. Algeria, in particular, is predominantly known for its music style, RAI music, which receives most of the recognition and awards. However, rap is a new and emerging genre in the region, and Didine Canon 16, is leading the way as the number one rapper in North Africa, supported by the numbers and the sources.
Regards Riad Salih ( talk) 15:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:BASIC for having wide news coverage. Possibly he may have some chart rankings based on provided info, but I have not researched it. Naomijeans ( talk) 17:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as has reliable sources coverage for WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as explained. Riad Salih ( talk) 15:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as explained.-- Panam2014 ( talk) 12:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Popcore Games

Popcore Games (  | talk | history | 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 game company, the only reliable source used is about a routine business transaction. No sourcing found in RS, nothing for notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Germany. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I overhauled some of the wording and wiped out the one-sentence Funding section per copyright violation concerns. I'm not encouraged here. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with regret. I used to play Parking Jam 3D all the time, but the only sources for the company are weekly charts, sale announcements, and a bunch of Russian stuff I can't read. QuicoleJR ( talk) 14:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Sourcing is insufficient to illustrate significant coverage for notability, with existing sources providing a limited foundation to describe the company and its games. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 01:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Modern Chinese characters

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

A POV-fork, and also clearly not a completed article. Walt Yoder ( talk) 03:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Not ready for mainspaceMeh it's fine where it is. It's not clear what constitutes a "modern Chinese character" (no mention of obselescence horizon). This reads like a very mild POVFORK and has entirely empty sections consisting only of headers. Some concepts are mentioned without being introduced (who is Professor Su?). It's not clear why the author chose to create this article in mainspace rather than contribute to existing articles.
    It seems like the author has put a lot of good faith effort into this article, and once it is finished it could serve as something like Introduction to Chinese characters, or split into bits and added to existing articles. I don't think the content should be deleted, but rather draftified or userfied. All the sources are reliable and as far as I can tell, all claims pass WP:V. Folly Mox ( talk) 04:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The article won an excellent score at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_China/New_articles.
    "Modern Chinese characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Ctxz2323 (talk · contribs · new pages (7)) started on 2023-07-15, score: 100" Ctxz2323 ( talk) 13:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    User:Ctxz2323, I think you have a really good start to an article here, and frankly I would have loved it if such an article had existed back when I first started learning Chinese. The "score" of 100 you're seeing is based on the text of your article matching regular expressions listed at User:AlexNewArtBot/China. What it means is that the article is 100% likely to be a Chinese topic, not that it is 100% excellent. I think you should consider moving the article into your userspace until you're finished with it. Folly Mox ( talk) 13:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Professor Su can be found via the citation [16]. He is a professor of Peking University, teaching "Modern Chinese Character".
" According to Professor Su's estimation, the total number of modern Chinese characters (in Mainland China) is about 10,000 and a bit more. [16] " Ctxz2323 ( talk) 13:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Agree that the article is not complete. But isn't it true that even a stud article may be published and grow on wiki? Ctxz2323 ( talk) 14:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep for lack of a valid rationale. Even the commenter who suggest it is not mainspace-ready sees potential in it. I am not seeing the WP:FORK here, and there are two book sources primarily about Modern Chinese, enough to indicate independent notability for an article on the topic. This article has TWO significant issues: uncited statements, and the fact that it occasionally feels like an essay if it broke the rule of not using the word "you", but AFD is not cleanup. User:HumanxAnthro ( BanjoxKazooie) 16:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The 2 "you" s in the article are in the first paragraph:
According to the latest data of Ethnologue, "Mandarin Chinese (the modern standard Chinese, also called Putonghua) is the largest language in the world, if you count only native speakers. If you count both native and non-native speakers, English is the largest (with Chinese being the 2nd largest)." And Chinese is written in Chinese characters.
They all appear in a direct quotation from the Ethnologue citation source. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 01:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you all for the informative discussion.
Now I agree to move the article into my userspace to make it more complete and mainspace-ready.
But, I have just got a message from User:Hey man im josh - Wikipedia, telling me that "the page Modern Chinese characters has been reviewed" (sent 12 hours ago). Does it mean it should stay in the mainspace now? Ctxz2323 ( talk) 00:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Walt Yoder and Hey man im josh: what do yall think? Mainspace development definitely isn't the norm anymore, but the article in progress here only has one incoming mainspace link, from Standard Chinese. I'm feeling overall meh about what namespace the article should be completed in. There aren't inaccuracies, just missing sections and some duplicated content. (And for the non-specialists, one source cited heavily in this article – Qiu Xigui (2000). 文字學概要 [Chinese Writing]. Translated by Gilbert Mattos; Jerry Norman. – is the number one best and most authoritative English-language source on the topic) Folly Mox ( talk) 14:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The main reason why I moved it out to Mainspace before it was completed is:
"Modern Chinese characters" is a big topic, and it keeps branching out new articles, (some of which are already reviewed, some got hundreds of visits already). And it seems it will take one year at least to have it and the sub-articles completed.
However, if you prefer to have it moved to some other namespace to be completed in, it will be ok for me.
By the way, I was the subject teacher of "Modern Chinese characters and Information Technology" in a university for over 10 years before my retirement 5 years ago. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 04:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Another reason: the first 5 sections of the article, including the Top, are completed. And there are cases where some volumes in a series of books are published before the others. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 06:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The following information just got from wiki might be useful for your consideration:
"curprev 13:36, 15 July 2023‎ Ctxz2323 talk contribs‎ m 18,374 bytes 0‎ Ctxz2323 moved page Draft:Modern Chinese characters to Modern Chinese characters: Publish page to mainspace undo"
"Modern Chinese characters · 7/14/2023 - 7/24/2023 · 322 pageviews"
"322" visits in 10 days. Does it mean wiki readers are interested in this article? If yes, then we should be more careful with it. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 02:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I totally agree with the idea that "Mainspace development definitely isn't the norm anymore." And understand that if an article is to be published incomplete, it must be exceptional and supported by sufficient reasons.
In the case of article "Modern Chinese characters", the reasons include:
  1. Out of the 7 articles I have published on Mainspace so far, "Modern Chinese characters" is the only one published incomplete, and there are reasons:
  2. If we are going to present a somewhat in-dept introduction to "Modern Chinese characters" (a big title), it will take at least one whole year to write, I am afraid.
  3. The article has already branched out 5 child and grand-child articles in the mainspace, 4 of which are already reviewed. If we refuse the grandpa/mum a seat while the children and grandchildren are sitting there, will it sound ridiculous?
  4. In the article, 5 sections with substantial contents are already completed. The file size is now at 24,455 bytes. It is not an empty article.
  5. The article "Modern Chinese characters" has recently been reviewed, if then be immediately deleted, will it bring a lot of why's from the readers, and be a laughing matter on our "wiki review work"?
  6. Data from wiki:
"Modern Chinese characters · 7/14/2023 - 7/24/2023 · 322 pageviews"
"curprev 13:36, 15 July 2023‎ Ctxz2323 talk contribs‎ m 18,374 bytes 0‎ Ctxz2323 moved page Draft:Modern Chinese characters to Modern Chinese characters: Publish page to mainspace undo"
322 pageviews in 10 days, does it means the readers are quite interested in this new article?
Sorry, I might have talked too much. But my intention is to provide you more relevant information. Thanks for your patience. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 03:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
User:Ctxz2323, I pinged the nom a few days ago and they haven't responded. From me, I personally withdraw any objection to article namespace. Thanks for your contributions; keep up the good work. Folly Mox ( talk) 14:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Many thanks!
Do I understand that the article is kept in the mainspace? I WILL try my best to make it better and better.
Thank you all again!
Thank God! Ctxz2323 ( talk) 22:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
AfDs usually run for seven days, so there's still a possibility that people will show asking the article be moved into your userspace, but given the level of participation so far that seems unlikely, so the article will probably remain in mainspace. Judging from the relief evident in your post immediately above this one, this conversation seems to have caused you some stress. If that is the case, I'd like to apologise for my contribution as a stressor. Happy editing! Folly Mox ( talk) 01:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
You are right! Having a Deleting label at the top of your article is stressing!
Thanks for your understanding! Ctxz2323 ( talk) 07:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This became a two person discussion and the nominator didn't withdraw their nomination. The article creator volunteered to move their article to User space and I'd like to hear from other editors on whether or not this should stay in the main space or be relocated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I prefer that the article stays in the main space, of course, instead of moving to my user space. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 07:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Let me reiterate the reasons why I prefer the article to stay in the main space, with the data updated:
  1. Out of the 9 articles I have published on the main space so far, "Modern Chinese characters" is the only one published incomplete, and there are reasons:
  2. If we are going to present a somewhat in-dept introduction to "Modern Chinese characters" (a big title), it will take at least one whole year to write, I am afraid. (having teaching this subject for over ten years in a university in Hong Kong)
  3. The article has already branched out, or spined off, 7 child and grand-child articles in the main space, 4 of which are already reviewed. If we refuse the grandpa/mum a seat while the children and grandchildren are sitting there, will it sound ridiculous?
  4. In the article, more than 5 sections with substantial contents are already completed. The file size is now at about 24,000 bytes. It is not an empty article.
  5. The article "Modern Chinese characters" has recently been reviewed, if then be immediately relocated or deleted, will it bring forth a lot of why's from the readers, and be a laughing matter on our "wiki review work"?
  6. Data from wiki: "Modern Chinese characters · 7/13/2023 - 8/2/2023 · 819 pageviews", "curprev 13:36, 15 July 2023‎ Ctxz2323 talk contribs‎ m 18,374 bytes 0‎ Ctxz2323 moved page Draft:Modern Chinese characters to Modern Chinese characters: Publish page to mainspace undo". 819 pageviews in 18 days since the page was moved to main space on July 15, does it mean the readers are quite interested in this new article? Is it OK if the article suddenly disappears from their view?
  7. More reference sources have been added and editing done according to the suggestions of the editors in this discussion.
Thank you for your attention and help! Ctxz2323 ( talk) 02:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep, per above Brachy08 (Talk) 04:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - seems to me that the topic is self-evidently notable and therefore deserves to be in mainspace. That said, there does need to be better editing to make it encyclopedic and reduce the total size of the page. My advice would be to work with relevant wikiprojects to clarify the topic and find a way to summarise the main points if there are to be other pages on related topics and subtopics. JMWt ( talk) 08:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and oppose moving to user or draft space. The topic is clearly notable and the article is already a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. I entirely reject the idea that articles should be approaching completion before they appear in main space. A gentle remark: it can be difficult for a subject matter expert to provide references. For an ignoramus like me it is easy because everything I know on a subject is gleaned from current reading. Make a huge effort to at least reference each paragraph. Thincat ( talk) 20:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Would you mind telling me where the POV (Point of View) fork lies in, so as to help improve the article? Ctxz2323 ( talk) 06:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Sorry I clicked [reply] to "A POV-fork, and also clearly not a completed article. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)",
and it appeared here above. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 06:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify or weak keep - the topic is clearly notable, and the parent page Chinese characters is quite long so not a straightforward merge situation. My reservation is that the article in its current state reads much more like a draft, especially with all the stub headings. Personally I would prefer this article be fleshed out more in draft space before returning to main. I don't see any reason to rush this into mainspace. If kept, I agree with others that attention should be brought to the relevant WikiProject for prompt work.
StereoFolic ( talk) 03:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Simplified Chinese, or Standard Chinese. This is an article ripe for merging, and though its execution likely means it should be TNT'd, it's notable as evidenced by the previous comments. Modern Chinese Characters as a single topic is best treated as one merged with Simplified Chinese characters given that the CCP under Mao modernized the language into removing all the necessary strokes for certain symbols, the character for fish (⿂ vs. ⻥) being one of the most glaring examples. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 03:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    "Modern Chinese characters" covers a larger range than the characters in either Simplified Chinese, or Standard Chinese.
    By the way, are you going to merge article Chinese characters into Chinese language? Ctxz2323 ( talk) 07:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I would not recommend the merging of the two pages you proposed. The characters are a subtopic to the language that is significant enough to warrant their own article. I don't see how this fits into this discussion. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 02:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Modern Chinese characters include modern traditional Chinese characters. How can you merge them into Simplified Chinese? Ctxz2323 ( talk) 02:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Simplified Chinese is not the only modernized Chinese language. Modern traditional Chinese is used in Taiwan and Hong Kong. And many Chinese language users are not living under the CCP.
    In fact, (⿂ and ⻥) are both modern Chinese characters. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 02:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, maybe there is a misunderstanding. You said "Merge into Simplified Chinese", and I understood your "Chinese" as Chinese language, not just Chinese characters. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 02:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Respectfully, User:InvadingInvader, the assertions equating simplified with modern, as well as those conflating language and writing system, are incorrect.
    Having taken a more thorough look at the article as it stands now, I'm a bit more in favour of a rename, although I'm struggling with an appropriate target. Dissatisfying ideas have included Modern usage of Chinese characters, Present status of Chinese characters, Modern Standard Chinese writing, Overview of modern Chinese writing, Current status and applications of Chinese characters, Chinese as She is Wrote, et al. I think a rename may be in order because the topic is not well defined: there are at least three authorities delimiting the set: the PRC State Council, Taiwan's Ministry of Education, and the Xinhua Zidian (leaving aside the Hong Kong pedagogical aide and authorities in Japan and Korea).
    I don't think there's a suitable merge target, but I would kindly recommend to the author MOS:TONE, since phrases like the existing Wiki articles, the purpose of this article (and its branching articles) etc. don't quite fit encyclopaedic tone. The remainder of the article after the lead seems pretty on point though. Folly Mox ( talk) 03:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Silcox, Manitoba

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

A nonexistent community back-formed from Silcox station. I can find no testimony to it as a settlement, and in the US at least we have consistently deleted these rail locations, where at least GNIS misleadingly labelled them as "populated places". In this case we don't seem to have even that. Mangoe ( talk) 03:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete It's basically a point on a map. No settlement there, the train stops to pick up wilderness adventurers, it's not easily accessible. I can't find notability for this place in any kind of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't even understand why we're calling it "Silcox station". It's a flag stop. Do we normally call these "stations"? There's no station, you literally have to call the railway company and tell them where you want the train to pick you up and drop you off. -- asilvering ( talk) 04:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Reply: Many flag stops are physical buildings. This one is now (it is only a signpost), but based on what I understand of Canadian railway history, it is likely to have been a physical building in the years when railways needed agents in stations to communicate with crews and customers. The use of radio and cheap long-distance telephony led to the elimination of many station agents, and the buildings were either demolished or allowed to deteriorate to the point that demolition became necessary. In a Canadian rail context, though, station does not always mean a building. It can simply be a named place on a timetable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
      I'm familiar with Canadian rail. My question was about Wikipedia norms. -- asilvering ( talk) 05:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The province of Manitoba appears to recognize this community. See this list of cities and towns on the province's website: Province of Manitoba,Infrastructure and Transportation. "Index to Cities and Towns | Transportation and Infrastructure | Province of Manitoba". www.gov.mb.ca. Retrieved 2023-07-28. A google search for Silcox is made difficult by several instances of Silcox as a surname. Travel Manitoba https://www.travelmanitoba.com/ doesn't seem to have a listing for Silcox. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Have a look: see a town here? [51]. -- asilvering ( talk) 05:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I found their "Populations for incorporated centres over 1 000 as per Statistics Canada 2016 figures." suspicious and checked. Here is the census for Silcox: [52]. That is to say, there isn't one - it's part of a large unorganized census division, and the entire population of the area is in the low hundreds, with a population density of 0.0. I'm not sure what the province used to make their list, but it's certainly not a list of "incorporated centres over 1000". That phrase is obviously misleading. (I have no guesses for what it could possibly mean otherwise in context.) -- asilvering ( talk) 05:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Actually going for the map in question is very revealing. First of all, the main page there is an outdated mess: in the case of Silcox, it says it's on a sheet which doesn't exist. But a look at this 2022 map tells all. It's easy to locate Churchill on the shore of Hudson Bay (because there isn't anything else man-made there), and as soon as you increase the magnification enough to see any detail at all, a thin line heading south from the town appears. This is the rail line in question, and on it are a series of "towns" exceedingly regularly spaced, among which may be found Silcox. The complete lack of roads or anything else except glacial lakes reveals these for the series of flag stops which they surely are. It would make sense to have a list of these in the train article, but it's patently clear they aren't real towns as soon as one gets away from highway maps, which not incidentally have a terrible record as far as these things go. Mangoe ( talk) 12:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Mangoe My favourite bit is how the Silcox station is barely closer to Silcox Creek than Thibaudeau. -- asilvering ( talk) 06:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. "There's no 'there' there" looking at satellite imagery at the coordinates listed. Look at the image for yourself -- bogs, bugs and boreal forest for miles. You'd have to wade or canoe to get to it. No siding or structure.
Also, Via Rail indicates the Silcox "station" is a sign post. My guess is that it's used by tourists (canoeists) in the summer.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silcox Creek -- Silcox ( talk) 15:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete for the lack of notability. Silcox ( talk) 03:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 21:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie ( talk) 01:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Statue of Josiah Quincy III

AfDs for this article:
Statue of Josiah Quincy III (  | talk | history | 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 have no idea why the first nomination was withdrawn but there's no real claim for notability (the survey mentioned is intended to be all-inclusive). An image in Quincy's article suffices. Mangoe ( talk) 02:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep. No notability? The statue was erected in 1879 in front of Boston's City Hall, a City Hall which was the official center of Boston government for the next 90 years. A major city like Boston, of such importance to the nation and its history, just doesn't toss up a statue of anybody in front of their City Hall for 90 years. One that's still sitting there at the historical site another 54 years later and apparently has survived the 2020s statue purge. Its only statue companion? Benjamin Franklin. The Quincy statue seems notable from common sense alone. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Without respect to this particular subject, Boston has hundreds of statues. Some indeed are notable, but nothing is notable just because it exists. What common sense dictates is that since notability standards have not yet been repealed, one must actually find sources. Ravenswing 04:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Location, location, location. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is the second time you've said a statue is notable because it exists. Please stop it. Now, sources have been added in part because it's in a prominent place, but if its notability is merely inherited from location, it should be merged to Old City Hall (Boston). Public buildings often have public art, but that doesn't inherently mean they need stand-alone articles unless there is significant independent coverage, and this is not a policy-based vote that a closing admin should give any weight to. Reywas92 Talk 13:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
There are plenty of sources, as mentioned by others below. My comment was about WP:COMMONSENSE, which is an aspect of WP:IAR (a major Wikipedia policy). Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
No, that's not common sense, because even if others find sources after you make a meaningless comment, there could still be a WP:NOPAGE argument to merge, perhaps even to something like Public art of Old City Hall (Boston). You didn't say "There are probably plenty of sources for something old downtown", you said "It's automatically notable because of where it is." Location is not and never has been an exemption to our notability standards. Reywas92 Talk 13:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Once again, WP:COMMONSENSE is an aspect of the policy WP:IAR, which my comment covers (referring to the maintaining of Wikipedia by not removing this statue's page). Can we please stop cluttering this discussion with a semantic dispute, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

El Watan (TV channel)

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

Fails WP:GNG; no sources. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 01:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider sources brought up in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • An Arabic-language source search would be quite useful. I am also attempting to figure out if the newspaper of the same name was a related business. The channel's closure did get covered in CNN Arabic [53]; the report linked indicates that there was a demonstration in front of Parliament in protest of its closure, and 18 people were arrested and brutalized by police. I would lean weak keep. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 20:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just giving a second relist. I know that we do have some editors who participate in AFDs who are familiar with Arabic and Arabic language sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the refs dug up above since the AfD started. Here's another one. [54]
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

David E. Smith

David E. Smith (  | talk | history | 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 is almost entirely uncited and does not meet BLP. The subject also does not meet WP:NBIO because they do not inherit notability from being associated with the Haight Ashbury Free Clinics. Ew3234 ( talk) 02:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete. Entirely uncited, the only source is a self-source. I did a quick search on the internet and there are nofew reliable sources about this person. There is a David Smith at the University of Michigan, who has a named professor appointment at the university, but it is unlikely to be the same person. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 07:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
A little more elaboration here. I am certain that David E Smith has published books, and that he is an adjunct prof at UCSF [55], but neither amounts to good notability. Maybe this article from the San Francisco Chronicle and this report from the UC system could establish some notability? He also got a NYTimes mention by the book he co-authored (see here). I think if someone works to rework this article, I can imagine it getting kept, but at this point I still would !vote weak delete. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 07:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Oxygen tetrafluoride

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

A hypothetical compound whose problems with existence start with the two extra electrons the first reference admits to and goes on from there—but not for very long, I have to suspect, given how nasty oxygen difluoride is already and how desperately those two extra fluorine atoms probably want to break free. At any rate, it doesn't have a CAS number and there's nothing here that suggests that there's any empirical validation of any property of the stuff, much less that anyone has any idea of how to synthesize it. Mangoe ( talk) 02:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep, just because the compound is hypothetical and almost impossible to exist doesn’t mean it should have its own article. Take radon hexafluoride for example. Brachy08 (Talk) 04:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
All the more reason to delete the latter. The article on hexafluorides doesn't mention a radon version, and neither should we. Mangoe ( talk) 04:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree: Delete. Athel cb ( talk) 08:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Inadequate coverage of something that doesn't exist. Reywas92 Talk 13:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Hypothetical compounds can certainly be notable, but this one hasn't been the subject of any systematic study that I can find. "Predictions" about donor-acceptor interactions are not systematic study, and one of the two papers cited for that claim never mentions the compound at all, only lists it in a table alongside a bunch of other oxygen-fluorine compounds they admit probably cannot exist. Database entries do not count toward notability, and this compound doesn't even have that: No CAS number, nothing in PubChem or Chemspider. The article cites an AP Chemistry study guide as a source, for crying out loud. Come on. I could draw a helium atom with nineteen vanadium atoms bonded to it; does that mean WP should have an article on "helium nonadecavanadide"? Delete. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 14:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Given that the OF article does no more than mention OF4, I think not. Mangoe ( talk) 03:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the list can be endless if we made a list of “possible” compounds
FuzzyMagma ( talk) 17:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Carr Cavender

Carr Cavender (  | talk | history | 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 actor, has only appeared in short films. Film festival award is non-notable. No sourcing found other than social media. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Has starred in multiple previously released feature films. More than enough RS are referenced in article including Newspapers.com. I believe WP:PRODUCER applies here with their involvement in To Hell and Gone. – Filmforme ( talk) 19:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Filmforme doesn't WP:PRODUCER require that someone's work be significant? To Hell and Gone was a barely notable movie, let alone significant. If I'm missing something, let me know.
    -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 19:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ A. B. You may know more about it, but it is widely distributed by Gravitas Ventures. A google search says it’s on 10+ major streamers and physical media. That with the RS coverage for the film, it’s significant enough for me. – Filmforme ( talk) 21:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Anyone? Bueller?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - I tried hard. He's got refs for wining some routine awards (student of the week) [56] [57] [58] in high school but, gosh, I just can't bring myself to say he's notable because of that. Post-school, there are interesting articles in small press sites that talk about movies he's making but they're more about them than him.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 06:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Jenny Preece (squash player)

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Searching under "Jennifer Preece" I only found coverage that confirms she competed in a few regional games. A relatively low world ranking of 176. LibStar ( talk) 01:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - More importantly, fails WP:GNG. There aren't multiple independent reliable sources about her to establish notability.
SoniaSotomayorFan ( talk) 19:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per both WP:SNOW and article's subject meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines.‎. SouthernNights ( talk) 11:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Arleen McCarty Hynes

Arleen McCarty Hynes (  | talk | history | 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 is written largely like an essay and not like an encyclopedic article. Additionally, article isn't written from an NPOV. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ ( talk / contribs) 01:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm surprised about this. I found her on Women in Red, and wrote the article like I have written all of my other articles. I would like a second opinion. A lot of research went into this. Fortunaa ( talk) 01:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I took out some phrases that could be interpreted as not neutral, but I'm still struggling with why it was categorized that way. I did not know about her before doing the research, I cited books, articles, newspaper obits, etc. There was even a dissertation on her. Fortunaa ( talk) 01:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Here's a second opinion - the above is just one editor's viewpoint, and we can fix this. I added some ISBN numbers to the books above. I'll look a little more, and check again tomorrow. Right off hand, nothing glares at me that makes this deletion fodder. By the way, do you know an easy way to list books and have ISBN fill in the rest? At the top of your edit window, and look at the drop-down "Templates". Click on it and go to cite book. Open that, and input the ISBN number, then click the little thing to the right that looks like a magnifying glass. It should then fill the template. Works on most ISBN numbers, and on some it doesn't. Sure is a time saver. — Maile ( talk) 03:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Fortunaa the Eugene McCarthy section is an example where I might have worded some of it differently. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with how you did it. Unless someone wants to change a word or two, I think that section is good like it is. — Maile ( talk) 04:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The issues the nom raises are not adequate reasons for deletion, even if you agree with them (and I don't think I do as it now is). Is she notable? It seems yes, and there are enough refs. Johnbod ( talk) 04:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep None of that is an argument for deletion? I would have expected a multi-year old editor like Urban Versis 32 to be aware of that and what AfD is for. Anyways, discussing an actual topic of deletion, ie notability, I see plenty of additional sources on her. For example:
So I really don't see the point of this AfD. Silver seren C 05:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep - not a deletion candidate. Arleen McCarty Hynes is clearly notable just by quickly skimming the article's refs.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep clearly notable, no reason to delete. Newklear007 ( talk) 07:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Mehdi Brando Mahdloo

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

Does not meet notability criteria for WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Arts Tribune appears to be a generic entertainment blog. The "Vasto Film Festival" and "Hombres Literary Award" also do not seem terribly notable. Other claims are unsourced and I cannot find verification. Google search for "Mehdi Brando Mahdloo" or "Mehdi Mahdloo" comes up with fewer than 100 results, mostly directory entries and social media. There's one bylined write-up in a localized news site. ... discospinster talk 01:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Eunises Núñez

Eunises Núñez (  | talk | history | 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 has made at least three appearances for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Jonnie Sánchez

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

Former college soccer player who earned at least two caps for the Nicaragua women's national football team as a teenager. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy Delete‎ as a copyright violation. Whpq ( talk) 12:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Teleperformance Albania

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

This is a stub mostly based on self-published promotional materials. Teleperformance Albania is a subsidiary of Teleperformance which already as its own article. Gnkgr ( talk) 00:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Albania. Hey man im josh ( talk) 00:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Delete non-notable part of the main business, no sourcing found in RS. What's given is primary or non-RS. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not in line with WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ADVERTISING. Teleperformance Albania started with an initial capacity of 100 workstations, and we grew exponentially by roughly doubling that number every six months. We? I have never seen an Wiki article saying "we" in wikivoice. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 00:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well, "we" should have read NPOV before creating an article about themselves. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No indication of notability and page is basically written like an advertisement . Kpg jhp jm 04:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Also notice that the page creator is a sockpuppet of a blocked account, and that User:Teleperformance Albania has contributed to this article. Suspicious. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 12:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. Tagging it for G11, G12 of the profile posted at "best places to work for", no need to spend 7 days on this. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 09:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. G11 completed by Jimfbleak (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 15:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Teleperformance Philippines

Teleperformance Philippines (  | talk | history | 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 article that was clearly authored by the company it talks about for promotional purposes. Teleperformance is noteworthy but already has its own article. No need to create a new one for its subsidiaries also. Gnkgr ( talk) 00:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete, clearly promotional, falls under G11. Fails WP:NPOV Brachy08 (Talk) 04:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails WP:NCORP and written in a highly promotional tone . Kpg jhp jm 04:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I also noticed that the person who created this is probs a member of Teleperformance Philippines. Brachy08 (Talk) 06:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete: Qualifies for G11 speedy as pure promo that would need to fully be rewritten. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete --- Tito Pao ( talk) 12:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete, should have qualified under G11 and G12 a long time ago (see relevant entry here). Teleperformance's operations plus CSR programs (if any) in the Philippines can be mentioned in the Teleperformance article. - Ian Lopez @ 14:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete: WP:G11. ThisIsSeanJ ( talk) 04:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Ugh. Strictly speaking we don't have a CSD for blatant UPE that's been stubified to have no content and I can't find anything that isn't more likely a backwards copy but I'm going to tag it for G11 and the user page draft as G7 and U5. Speedy delete, snow. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 13:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_July_28&oldid=1168795109"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 July 29 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. It's snowing! ✗ plicit 14:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Persecution of Christians by Christians

Persecution of Christians by Christians (  | talk | history | 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 sources, POV, questionable labelling, has all come together to create a WP:COATRACK which seems to exist mainly for a 'gotcha title'. Also allegations of WP:OR and cherrypicking. Only conversation on Talk has been people calling for deletion. Ultimately, I feel any of this information can be included elsewhere (such as Sectarian violence among Christians). Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk) 00:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Tong Yabghu Khagan's Expedition to East Iran

Tong Yabghu Khagan's Expedition to East Iran (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another random Turkic-related battle/war created by a brand new user and which has source issues.

The most cited source, History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The crossroads of civilizations, A.D. 250 to 750. does not have a single mention of "Tong Yabghu" and the pages cited show completely different topics, see for yourself [5]. I can only assume that the other sources has similar issues. Regardless, no search in WP:RS showed any result of a "war" in 625.

Fails WP:NHISTORY and WP:GNG. Imagine if every random, vague, conflict was to be made into an article, that is whats occuring in these type of articles. I suspect meatpuppetry, if not sockpuppetry, though that's another story. See also [6]. HistoryofIran ( talk) 23:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Only thing you do is literally coming up with stuff like Wikipedia rules. Here are a few accurate/reliable sources:
  • The Archaeology of Afghanistan from earliest times to the Timurid period: New Edition Chapter-6 [1]
  • History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The crossroads of civilizations, A.D. 250 to 750., p. 362 [2]
  • Christoph Baumer, History of Central Asia, The: 4-volume set, p. 200 [3]
  • The Global Connections of Gandhāran Art: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop of the Gandhāra Connections Project, University of Oxford, 18th-19th March, 2019, p. 19 [4]
And yes i am a brand new user with source issues (!), o and i forgot to say, i am an object. (i am a which) Hunnic Enjoyer ( talk) 13:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ [4]
  • HistoryofIran is incorrect about the HcCA source: I quote from it "The definitive annexation of Tokharistan and Gandhara to the Western Türk Empire was to take place some years later, in c.625, when Sasanian Iran became involved in the war against Byzantium that ultimately led to its eclipse.8 The Western Türk army of T’ung Yabghukaghan advanced to the River Indus, took possession of the most important cities and replaced the Hephthalite dynasties with Türk rulers. This event was commemorated by a medal minted probably by Tardushad, the new Türk ruler of Tokharistan, in honour of T’ung Yabghukaghan..."
Nevertheless, even this is minor coverage at best. There is nothing in the article which can't be sourced to this the HcCa, an extremely in-depth source. I am extremely hesitant attributing any sort of WP:SIGCOV to the article: for that reason, delete. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Ah, my bad. Crossed that bit. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 15:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eighth Doctor#Lucie Miller. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Lucie Miller

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

While a very notable companion in spin-off material, I cannot find any evidence of SIGCOV. A quick search for sources yields only one or two potential results, which aren't enough to build an article off of. As it stands, the article fails SIGCOV. A redirect to either the Companion article or the list of Doctor Who Supporting Characters article seems the best option here. Pokelego999 ( talk) 19:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Pokelego999 ( talk) 19:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and United Kingdom. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Not enough sources exist to make an article. I have no opinion on which redirect target would be better. QuicoleJR ( talk) 16:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While a lot of the audio companions might not rise to this, as her stories were broadcast on BB7 I believe there has been coverage, such as here, which should be incorporated. Frond Dishlock ( talk) 02:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Can you provide more than just one source? While this one does have some commentary on the character, most of the other sources I found during my search were either trivial mentions, listicles, or didn't go in depth on her. Unless more can be provided that adequately discuss the character, I don't feel it's enough to justify the article's separate existence. Pokelego999 ( talk) 12:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, here is another article from Gizmodo. Frond Dishlock ( talk) 05:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Redirect not enough coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. Can't make an encyclopedic article without it. Shooterwalker ( talk) 20:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get a specific redirect target from y'all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Deafhead

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

Fails WP:GNG. A Google search reveals one relevant article, and the other results are mostly regurgitation of this WSJ article. Relevant info should be folded into Deadhead. — Ghost River 20:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. While there is some disagreement over the level of independence of cited sources, delete has the upper hand in terms of both arguments and numbers. Arguments relating to the fact that the series is still airing suggest that this could be a WP:TOOSOON case. signed, Rosguill talk 02:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Ranjithame

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

Fails WP:GNG; I can find no reliable sources to indicate notability (a search for "Ranjithame" finds only a Tamil-language song). Also, WP:FUTURE- this isn't a catalogue of upcoming minor soap operas. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 17:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 17:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Absolutely no sources, no claim of notability and no information useful to the reader. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: ( talk, contribs) 17:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
This and whatever I had in the first nomination are all namesakes of the popular song that came in a Tamil movie, and this minor namesake's NN is clearly shown by the lack of citations. The best use of this article name is to redirect it to the film's soundtrack article. Karnataka ( talk) 17:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree with that this article itself should be deleted, the above was just an idea with the link Karnataka ( talk) 07:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete as non-notable. In addition, I would object to the redirect suggested above as having little justification. Deckkohl ( talk) 11:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm neutral on the redirect issue; it's a bit of a strecth, and possibly WP:ASTONISHING, but still comes under {{ r from subtopic}}. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 13:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate new sources. Also, noting that this article was the subject of an AFD recently that closed as Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: the subject of the previous nomination (by me) was completely different to this one. This is about an upcoming TV series, the previous one was about a game show. Like I mentioned above, the usage of the term 'Ranjithame' has bolstered after the release of the song in the same name, which is probably the primary topic of this. Karnataka ( talk) 15:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: here's a source assessment, input/modifications appreciated. I hope to let this table represent consensus, not just my own assessment, so feel free to edit it. At the moment, GNG is shaky, largely because I'm unsure about source reliability. I also quite conflicted about tThe first times of india source- it seems like routine coverage and unreliable, but I may be biased against any article that uses language like " deets inside" in the headline. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 17:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Hindu Tamil Thisai ~ No consensus ? No Passing mention ✘ No
News18 Tamil Nadu Yes Secondary news source ? Yes ? Unknown
News18 Tamil Nadu (2) Yes Secondary news source ? ~ Seems half-and-half, input is appreciated ? Unknown
The Times of India Yes Secondary news source ~ No consensus. ? WP:ROUTINE coverage? ? Unknown
cinema.vikatan.com Yes Secondary news source Yes No No mention ✘ No
Times of India 2 Yes Secondary news source ~ No consensus ? WP:ROUTINE coverage? ? Unknown
Trailer No Yes WP:ABOUTSELF Yes ✘ No
Trailer/promo No Yes WP:ABOUTSELF Yes ✘ No
Conclusion Yes ? ~ ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
  • Keep. I do not agree with the table above especially the last column. Hindu Tamil Thisai source may mention the name once but the whole article is about the television series only. Vikatan is also a reliable source. Although The Times of India is listed as may or may not be reliable, it is one of the main newspapers of India and should be considered reliable for non-gossip material. DareshMohan ( talk) 18:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Well, feel free to modify the source assessment table. As I said, I'll let it represent group consensus, not just my own opinion. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 20:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I feel like the Tamil Thisai source is not independent - it's only two paragraphs, and first being a introduction to the director and the second is a quote from him that explains his ideas for the story. I'm not exactly sure how factually correct the first News18 source is because as it notes in the article itself, there were no official details on the serial. Also note that only three sentences provide information on the serial, with others just being actor history. The second News18 source is about the actor, their involvement in another serial, and a passing mention that they'll take part in this one. Vikatan source talks about a completely different topic. I feel like both ToI sources are routine coverage, half of the content is just about actor history and the content about the serial are in both ToI articles. Karnataka ( talk) 22:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The source analysis is fairly explicit in its conclusions. It must be delete as it fails WP:SIGCOV. The article should have been created in draft. It is clear a bunch of UPE editors have decided to promote it on Wikipedia. I'll be sending them to coin. scope_creep Talk 10:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is still current and ongoing with new comments recently added. Relisting for one more cycle to help ascertain consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 20:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: The show still airing, in future can add more source. P.Karthik.95 ( talk) 15:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Seems like a WP:ATA#CRYSTAL argument. Once this may be shown as a notable TV series for encyclopedic entry can definitely be recreated in draftspace like mentioned. Karnataka ( talk) 18:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is a dispute about the source analysis table results.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Arguments for keeping were strong enough, and uncontested. The mere nomination is not enough to get the article deleted. (non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie ( talk) 01:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Chinna (art director)

Chinna (art director) (  | talk | history | 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:BLP whose only sources are IMDb and a dead link (presumably used to be a WP:SELFSOURCE). Copious tone and copyediting issues. jlwoodwa ( talk) 20:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. jlwoodwa ( talk) 20:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. See this (Note, August 2): See comment below)(which raises a massive copyright violation issue but there was no need, I thought, to flag yet another issue ... a big cleanup would be necessary) or this. Various articles on this. Mostly, I've checked a few films in the considerable list of his alleged participations and they seem to be correct. (examples: [10] [11].- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: the link number 1) above has for some reason turned "dead" on the TOI website- But it leads, if one clicks a few things, to the following text (copied verbatim by the article, as indicated):
"Chinna is one of the leading art director in Indian cinema. His debut venture was ‘Kalisi Nadudham’ (Telugu). He started art direction together with his guru B Anand Sai (son of senior art director B Chellam). His started his career as Assistant Art Director for the Tamil movie ‘Roja Malare’ starring Murali. Next was ‘Santosham’ followed by ‘Enasare Asave’ and so on. Then Shifted to Hyderabad for ‘Tholiprema’. Again together with his guru Anand Sai, he did Telugu movies like ‘Tholiprema’, ‘Thamudu’, ‘Badri’, ‘Kushi’ and ‘Prematho ra’.
In July 2017, his name was included in the list of 12 personalities of Telugu cinema, including actors, directors and producers, against whom the Telangana Prohibition and Excise Department had issued notices under relevant sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, asking them to appear before its special investigation team (SIT)." (The layout is currently terrible for some reason) [1]
The TOI also provides a filmography, which, makes me think he meets the criterion#3 for Creative professionals for his various contributions to notable films
  1. ^ "Chinna". The Times of India. ISSN  0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-08-02.

My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether to merge and if so, where , can be discussed on the article talk page. Randykitty ( talk) 09:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Google Directory

Google Directory (  | talk | history | 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 Qwv ( talk) 23:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Software, and Websites. Qwv ( talk) 23:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete since it is a non-notable defunct service unlikely to receive any more coverage in the future. Anton.bersh ( talk) 11:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED; any relevant material can be merged into List of Google products. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 11:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Just because a service no longer exists doesn't mean the page about it should be deleted. It shows up quite a lot in Google Scholar (which, by the way, speaks a lot about its notability), and I wish that when encountering something in old scholarly papers, one could quickly figure out on the Wiki what it was. Suitskvarts ( talk) 15:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to see if there is support for a Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I'd also favor a erge, but it seems to me that the best target would be to merge into DMOZ#Content users as a single paragraph. Most of the content in this article is actually describing DMOZ's structure anyway. (Also, LOL @ this sentence in the article: Everything was green. Ah, the memories.) -- Visviva ( talk) 06:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep or merge. I see some sigcov in (Calegari, S., & Pasi, G. (2010). Ontology-based information behaviour to improve web search. Future Internet 2(4),) but it's a bit jargon-filled. There are a decent number of other smaller mentions in academic resources, including instructions on how to use it to find field-specific information. I think WP:NOTTEMPORARY probably applies here as web directories are mostly forgotten now, but were quite the thing for a while. A such, we should should certainly seek an ATD. Visviva's suggested merge would be a fine one, unless we find more sources that distinguish Google Directory from other web directories. — siro χ o 12:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to List of Google products. Discontinued products can be notable enough for a standalone article but this one doesn't have enough significant coverage in reliable sources to merit a full article. It can easily just be a paragraph in the list. Steven Walling •  talk 06:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because I'm not seeing a rough consensus among editors and two different target pages for a Merge have been mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment, I think a complex merge with some appropriate verifiable information going to each of the existing section DMOZ#Content users and the existing entry in List of Google products would be appropriate here. I'm willing to handle it if it's the consensus. — siro χ o 22:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per Siroxo – there certainly seems to be some significant coverage, and lack of potential future coverage isn't relevant by itself. If the article is merged it should be into DMOZ with a link from List of Google products, any additional information would disrupt the format of the list article, and Google Directory is definitely notable as a major user of DMOZ. -- AlexandraAVX ( talk) 12:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think the sources are sufficient. The "Missing manual" book at 6 pages on the directory, and Google power tools has 8. Both give pretty detailed descriptions of the service. "Learn google" seems to have less but I can't view the relevant pages. I've added names to the references to make them easier to reuse, and will try filling in some of the areas without sources. Lamona ( talk) 23:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have made a lot of improvements to the article, so if you !voted early please take another look. Lamona ( talk) 16:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep is preferable to merge in this case, due to the principle that "notability is not temporary". Eluchil404 ( talk) 06:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At this point there's no consensus that I can see. No prejudice to a renomination in, say, a month from now if there's no clear improvement. Randykitty ( talk) 09:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sumaya Alnasser

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

Hello all,

First: The article does not meet the criteria for personalities, there are no real achievements, and it is clear that the article was created for promotional purposes only.

Second: The article was deleted four times from the Arabic Wikipedia, and whoever created this article was banned due to vandalism and published the article over and over again.

Obviously, this article is for promotional purposes only. Osps7 ( talk) 17:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep I totally disagree with you. Actually it meets the criteria for personalities, She is famous, has real achievements, popular in her country. Always appear in TV shows. She got several prizes. She is very well known business women. Google her name in Arabic (سمية الناصر) you will find many trusted sources. Mazin suliman ( talk) 18:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Moreover, I reviewed the Arabic version of this article which was deleted by you.
First of all: the Arabic version was direct translation of the English version. It is not new article. The translation took place after the English version was published.
Second: The user was not banned. You got in conflict with him. As result you came here to English Wikipedi and ask for deletion of this article to force your opinion which is not fair.
Again, the article meet meet the criteria for personalities. She got several achievements and got many international prizes. She is famous and popular. Mazin suliman ( talk) 18:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete for lack of coverage. Other than CNN, rest are non-RS or promo. I only find two hits in Gnews, neither of which seems like much. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Dear Oaktree,
Thank you so much for your replay. regarding the coverage, I can mention more than 100 trusted sources.
Here are examples:
Forbes Middle east listed her among the top 100 influential women in middle east: see here name listed in #98
[12] Forbes Middle east
Also, English Vogue and Arabic Vogue talked about her
Other popral trusted sources: Mille , ELLE, harpersbazaararabia. Haya, abouther Hia, popsugar, Youm7 , Okaz (government newspaper), Sayidaty, al-madina (government newspaper) , gheir, foochia, almarsal, hayatouki., healthmagazine, all of these magazines, websites, newspapers talked about. I can add more if you want.
Kindly, take into account the following topic Women's rights in Saudi Arabia which may create many challenges. Mazin suliman ( talk) 19:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Dear @ Oaktree b, I improved and edited the article by adding more reliable sources. I hope this addressed your conncrns. Thank you for your comments. Mazin suliman ( talk) 22:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep the personal squabbles to yourselves, we're here to review the article on the quality of the sources. The rest is immaterial. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I will. Thank you so much. Mazin suliman ( talk) 20:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting with the comment that "Famous and popular =/= Being Notable on Wikipedia"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep I've gone through the article and according to my knowledge it meets the notability guidelines for WP:BLP and criteria for WP:Notability (people). As per the research, the subject has many credible citations and mentions on notable platforms, newspapers, and media outlets. Therefore, it can be improved and made better in future.
I think the below source is not merely a passing mention and can be used:
The National News
The below link also clarifies the fact that she was among the top 100 influential women in middle east. Furthermore, I think the source is quite reliable as well.
Gulf News
Moreover, I've removed the amazon book listing link the article had. -- Leojuan ( talk) 08:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The listed sources do not have any international reference, and I suspect that they are paid news.
Also, the discussion is to delete the article, not to gather votes!! Osps7 ( talk) 11:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Hey Osps7. I guess you're mistaken here. You should have gone with UDP (Undisclosed paid) tag, and not deletion right away. You've opened a deletion/discussion log for this article, which makes clear sense to me that it needs suggestions/votes to either keep it or remove it. Coming back to the fact where you mentioned that the listed sources do not have any international reference. Can you elaborate on that? Gulf News is considered to be an international source to my knowledge. Maybe I'm wrong here. But it still doesn't make any sense to open a deletion page and not taking suggestions for keeping or deleting the article. Thank you! Leojuan ( talk) 12:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep - The articles from The National (Abu Dhabi) ( 1) and Arab News ( 2)look okay to me (although they seem quite promotional), but I don't see much other significant coverage. Other editors should assess if those sources are sufficiently independent and reliable to constitute WP:SIGCOV. Suriname0 ( talk) 18:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It seems we have basic here. Okoslavia ( talk) 21:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to hear from some experienced editors. I'll admit I'm skeptical of "lifestyle coaches" no matter what their nationality. Coaching is an interpersonal activity and it's hard to demonstrate notability in it. I also wonder how she could have possibly, at 41 years of age, trained 200,000 people...that's a small country! So while there is a rough consensus to Keep, I'm skeptical enough about the claims of the article to warrant a third relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - based on searching the title of the Arab News source " Peace without Borders announces first Saudi peace ambassador", this appears primarily based on a press release, which includes the extraordinary claim, "She has trained more than 200 thousand people". Beccaynr ( talk) 16:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Liz, I share your skepticism about 200,000 trainees. I've spent 2 hours on refs. Sadly, I went through all the chaff before finding the reliable stuff. Ms. Alnasser, to a certain extent is famous for being famous in the Middle East. Also, from reading the local news coverage in translation, some of her fame is the novelty of her messages (such as self-care for women) in Saudi Arabia - stuff that seems self-evident in other cultures. She is also a great self-promoter.
    Looking at the sources:
      • Vogue, Mille, Hia are interviews. See Wikipedia:Interviews.
      • Harper's Bazaar article appears to be written by Sumaya Alnasser
      • Haya-online.com is used as a ref in only one article. [13]
      • AboutHer.com is owned by Saudi Research and Media Group. We use it as a ref on 50+ articles. [14] The article is bylined and gushy.
      • PopSugar is an article/interview hybrid.
      • youm7.com is very brief
      • The foochia.com article is too short. It's fluffy. Only 5 articles use that site as a ref. Similar issues are with refs to gheir.com (3 article use that site) and healthmagazine.ae (3 article use that site).
      • "Peace without borders" is a 3-word phrase that shows up many times. The organization mentioned in the article seems non-notable. The domain pwbparis.org no longer works; here is Archive.org's history
        • The Kawa, Okaz, Gulf Daily News, almrsal.com articles are brief articles about Sumaya Alnasser winning their award or being named a peace ambassador.
      • The hayatouki.com link didn't work.
      • The Forbes Middle East article ranks Sumaya Alnasser 98th on the list of 100.
    (Warning, my web translator did a very poor job with this article- another honoree's name was translated from Arabic as "Orgasm of the Runes")
    The Sayidaty Award for Excellence and Creativity seems like a legit honor (compared to 98th on the Forbes list and the mythical Peace without borders honor)
    Here is the Arab Wikipedia deletion log.( Google translated version) Interestingly, one of the deleted articles was created by a now globally banned admin with 200,000+ edits. Looking for a paid editor for your bio - go for the top guy!
    Conclusion: String together the solid The National (Abu Dhabi) article, the non-interview part of the PopSugar article + maybe a few pieces of other stuff (carefully selected) and I find marginal notability. That said, I won't cry if Liz deletes this.
    -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 19:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Content substantially similar to the press release also appears in the 2018 source by The National (Abu Dhabi): Saudi life coach Sumayah Alnasser: 'The more I meditated, the more I noticed everything improving', including a "more than 200,000 clients around the world" claim. The National source is largely based on her statements and has a focus on promoting her meditation CD The Back Door - the writer does not provide their own secondary commentary about the CD. The 2018 Vogue interview The First Female Saudi Life Coach on Her Top Tips for Success says she "delivers courses in Arabic to thousands of clients worldwide," and offers several "quick-fire tips" (quotes) from Al-Nasser, and promotes The Back Door at the end of the interview. The 2018 Health Magazine source noted above, " The Path to Loving Yourself – Renowned Saudi Life Coach, Dr. Sumaya Alnasser on Cultivating Self-Relationship" is a press release; the Gulf News source noted above UAE expats among 100 most Influential women in Middle East is reporting on a Forbes list and the presence of some expats on the list for the first time - Al-Nasser is only briefly mentioned in a reprinting of the full Forbes list of 100 most influential women in the Middle East: "98. Sumaya Al-Nasser, Founder, Sumaya 369". Beccaynr ( talk) 18:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - there does not appear to be sufficient support available for WP:BASIC notability at this time, and Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. In my comments above, I identified sources that appear to draw on press release content and/or are based on interviews, and/or otherwise lack secondary context or commentary to help support notability. Other sources include a 2018 Pop Sugar interview You're Meditating Wrong, According to This Saudi Life Coach which includes a quote of what she "previously said" and quotes from what she says, followed by "five steps to getting started" with meditation that are not clearly attributed to her. I think reporting on the Forbes list can help show its significance; an Al Riyadh (newspaper) source was added to the article (Google translated: "Six Saudi women are on the Forbes list of the most influential women in the Middle East") and states (translated), "As for the last Saudi woman in the Forbes list, Sumaya Al-Nasser, the founder of the “Sumaya 369” company specialized in the consulting sector, ranked 98 in the classification.") However, an Argaam source, titled 6 Saudi women on Forbes most influential list repeats the "has trained more than 200,000 people" press release claim in its blurb about her. The Forbes list itself says (Google translated): "Founder, Sumaya 369, consulting sector, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia". And as noted above, there are various sources briefly reporting announcements, e.g. Okaz about the 2018 Peace Without Borders peace ambassador with a brief general blurb about her work; Al Madina (newspaper), reporting (Google translated) "The Prince of Al-Sharqiya honors 20 Saudi winners of the Sayidaty Award for Excellence and Creativity"; she is listed as one of two honored in the humanitarian and social work category. In the 2019 CNN interview source, (Google translated), there is "the presenter’s astonishment that she holds a doctorate in interpretation and the sciences of the Qur’an and is not veiled" reported, which seems more substantial than interviews promoting her CD or offering tips on success or meditation, etc. While she appears to have some independent recognition, most sources appear promotional and/or lack independence, reliability, or the secondary context or commentary needed to support notability and help develop a neutral and balanced article. Beccaynr ( talk) 21:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Beccaynr, Your assessment is different from mine, so the admin should probably look at the two I noted and decide for themselves.
    -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 23:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    To clarify the policy reasons supporting my !vote: I used a search method that can be helpful for identifying advertisements masquerading as articles, i.e. finding press release content incorporated into other sources, particularly in sources with other signs of promotion, such as The National, with its reliance on her statements and lack of independent secondary commentary on her work, while other sources, such as Vogue and Al Riyadh, do not repeat the extraordinary claim also made by the press release.
    Our notability guideline has two prongs - first, whether there is support for GNG or its functional equivalent - there do not appear to be sufficient independent, reliable, and secondary sources with which we can build an encyclopedic article; second, whether this article should be excluded by the What Wikipedia is not policy - the sources largely appear to demonstrate that this article should be deleted, because of the need to protect the encyclopedia from promotion and advertising. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 01:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Zagg

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

Looks like a WP:ROTM company who is only a distributor of accessories. The page mostly has details about the management structure change and has only standard notices and routine coverage of acquisitions, which as per WP:ORGDEPTH does not make the company notable. It was created by an SPA and was proposed for deletion in the past (unrelated but FYI). Trolli Onida ( talk) 14:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Utah. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment PC Mag and the Verge talk about a service the company offers, I'm not sure that's enough for notability here though. Agree that most sourcing is about management changes. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 18:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know if this company is notable but 500+ million U.S. dollars in sales is not "run of the mill", at least not in my country.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 19:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I agree. Sounds impressive and usually for a stock traded on Nasdaq and at those revenue levels we'd find analyst reports which discuss the company in detail. But I cannot locate any reports. We need references that meet NCORP. I'm happy to revisit my !vote if someone locates something but as of now, there's nothing by way of sources that meets our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 08:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd years ago so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The page has 27 sources and was also a listed company. But, sources don't help with notability. If stock listing of companies was enough to make it notable, then it could make sense. I don't think that's the case for notability. Revenue is good, but not a subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as per criteria. CourtseyDriver ( talk) 23:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's consensus that List of cities in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern by population should be merged here. Randykitty ( talk) 09:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

List of cities in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania

List of cities in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (  | talk | history | 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 scope of this article and List_of_cities_in_Mecklenburg-Vorpommern_by_population are exactly the same, but where to merge the content to is far from obvious because both articles aren't too good Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 21:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. This "sub-stub" obviously needs a lot of work, but sufficient sources seem to be available. Randykitty ( talk) 09:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Julius Hammer

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

Biography of a person, not making or sourcing any serious claim to passing our notability criteria for people. As always, notability is not inherited, so people don't get articles just for being related to other people per se -- but "had notable descendants" is the only notability claim being attempted here at all, and the sole source is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a review of his son's autobiography, which is not enough coverage to claim that he would pass WP:GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 21:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Today, actor Armie Hammer and his personal life get all the attention. However his great-great-grandfather, Julius, and great-grandfather, Armand Hammer, were far more consequential. Julius led formation of the Communist Party of the United States of America [15] and worked as a Soviet secret agent in the U.S. Notwithstanding Communism's hostility to capitalism, Julius also made a small fortune for himself through his dealings with Amtorg Trading Corporation. Armand subsequently turned the small fortune into a huge fortune, also due in art to his Soviet ties. Here's a sample of coverage:
Attempted jury-tampering by an agent of the Tammany Hall political machine further sensationalized the trial.
  • Spence, Richard B (21 June 2017). Wall Street and the Russian Revolution 1905-1925. pp. 94–96, 101, 145–146, 189, 199, 204, 241, 243, 257. ISBN  978-1634241236.
    • Julius gets more attention in this book than his son Armand since during this era, 23-year old Armand was working as his father's representative in the USSR.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 00:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
If all of that is true, then it was the article creator's job to put it in the article in the first place, not my job to psychically know things the article isn't saying. Bearcat ( talk) 15:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Bearcat, I don't think I said anything about you. Just the article. If you didn't know some of the Hammer family history, you might not know about Julius and Armand. I knew about the Hammers from a relative's interactions with Armand Hammer. So I zeroed in on this AfD when I saw it on AfD list. Armand, by the way, was pretty ethically challenged in his dealings with my relative, but then that's WP:OR. I don't know much about Armie Hammer; I haven't had time to sink my teeth into his story.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 17:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify if the creator is willing to bring it beyond the barest of stubs. If not, it will need to be deleted until someone wishes to create an actual encyclopedic article. Thanks to A. B. for coming up with sources. Lamona ( talk) 01:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per A.B.'s sources. signed, Rosguill talk 02:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 believe there's enough coverage" is an argument to avoid in AfD debates. Ignoring these !votes, there is consensus that this currently doesn't pass GNG. As there is no indication when this might change, I see no good reason to draftify. If and when this meets GNG in future, the current article can be restored by any admin. Randykitty ( talk) 09:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Joe O'Connor (footballer)

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

A web search finds passing mentions but no WP:SIGCOV. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on ( talk) 09:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Per KatoKungLee. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 15:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • DeleteRedirect to Exeter City F.C. as it's simply WP:TOOSOON for this young talented player. He has many very favourable mentions in various local newspapers (see ProQuest). It's just a shame to lose all the work that already went into this article. If he does get his big break someday (or just more focused coverage as an Exeter City player), maybe we could get the article refunded as draft. Cielquiparle ( talk) 18:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per KatoKungLee.-- Echetus Xe 14:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Draftify, player just made debut in team that gets high coverage.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 05:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Changed my !vote above to redirect to Exeter City F.C.. By redirecting, we preserve the page history which can easily be recovered if/when Joe O'Connor's career takes off and there is enough significant coverage for a standalone Wikipedia article. But as promising as he is...I'm not convinced this will happen in the next six months, so instead of kicking the can down the road by draftifying...why not just redirect for now. Cielquiparle ( talk) 06:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect or delete. GNG coverage has not been established. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There is consensus that this currently doesn't pass GNG. As there is no indication when this might change, I see no good reason to draftify. If and when this meets GNG in future, the current article can be restored by any admin Randykitty ( talk) 09:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Mitch Beardmore

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

A web search finds passing mentions. The only article that comes close to WP:SIGCOV is [16] which includes a lot of quotes from Exeter's manager but very little specifically about Beardmore. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on ( talk) 09:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Draftify, player just made his debut in highly covered league.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 05:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. There is consensus that this currently doesn't pass GNG. As there is no indication when this might change, I see no good reason to draftify. If and when this meets GNG in future, the current article can be restored by any admin Randykitty ( talk) 09:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Harrison King

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

A web search finds passing mentions but no WP:SIGCOV. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on ( talk) 08:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • 30 of those appearances were in the non-professional seventh tier of English football. But it's irrelevant, what counts is whether the article meets WP:GNG. Robby.is.on ( talk) 12:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. There is consensus that this currently doesn't pass GNG. As there is no indication when this might change, I see no good reason to draftify. If and when this meets GNG in future, the current article can be restored by any admin. Randykitty ( talk) 08:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Gabriel Billington

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

A web search finds passing mentions. The only article that comes close to WP:SIGCOV is [17]. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on ( talk) 08:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Draftfy, the player will likely pass GNG soon as they just made their pro debut in a highly covered league.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 05:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Draftify - player likely to become notable in near future, however not notable as not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG at the moment. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 00:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Zack (Battlestar Galactica)

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

Two one-sentence sections make up the whole article. It is framed as a disambiguation page, but neither character has an article. Additionally, it has zero sources. There is no reason to keep this. QuicoleJR ( talk) 19:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. QuicoleJR ( talk) 19:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not enough reliable coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. A bare stub with no hope of expansion that meets our policies. Shooterwalker ( talk) 20:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and merge to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. There is no reason for the (albeit very little) information to be lost, so merging would be good. Also, redirecting means that it on the future someone could potentially start the page again with lots of sources and real world info. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 22:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and merge. I'm surprised this article has even stuck around this long. Surprisingly, he's not listed in the original continuity there, so that might be worth adding, but aside from that no information is really being lost here from removing it. Pokelego999 ( talk) 01:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect or delete. Weird, I thought I did a pass of BG's articles few years back. How did I miss this? Haven't seen an article that bad here for quite a while. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not even a single wikipedia article links here. Orphaned, aparently insignificant even in-universe. – sgeureka t• c 13:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 23:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Clinton body count conspiracy theory

Clinton body count conspiracy theory (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was redirected in 2016. Is an article about a conspiracy theory that is unlikely to be true. From the article:

Several sources have discredited the conspiracy theory, such as Congressional Record,[11] the Lakeland Ledger, the Chicago Tribune, Snopes and others; pointing to detailed death records, the unusually large circle of associates that a president is likely to have, and the fact that many of the people listed had been misidentified or were still alive. Others had no known link to the Clintons

. p b p 19:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Its a widely referenced conspiracy theory. The wiki documents it and the debunking and the first sentence says its not true. The Clinton body count is a disproven conspiracy theory Softlemonades ( talk) 19:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- just because a conspiracy theory isn't true doesn't mean it's not notable. That this one is is shown clearly by the sources already in the article. Central and Adams ( talk) 20:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep look at all the new deaths, the theory may not be disproven, just not accepted yet. 75.169.169.36 ( talk) 02:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • redirect to List of conspiracy theories#Clintons which could be expanded a bit naming some of the most commonly claimed "victims" but which already says about what this article says in a very short paragraph. Mangoe ( talk) 21:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are plenty of sources showing the conspiracy theory's notability ( WP:NFRINGE). Isi96 ( talk) 00:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Archery at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's individual. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Soha Abed Elaal

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

Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Her only achievement is that she competed in the 2008 Summer Olympics. There are also no Reliable Sources about her. Charsaddian ( talk) 18:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Archery at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's individual. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Khadija Abbouda

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

Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Her only achievement is that she competed in the 2008 Summer Olympics. There are also no Reliable Sources about her. Charsaddian ( talk) 18:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. While editors arguing for keep were not able to provide citations to coverage that meets GNG, they identified multiple valid reasons for why sources may exist despite being hard to access and argued that it meets WP:NEVENT criteria. signed, Rosguill talk 02:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

MEDICA Trade Fair

MEDICA Trade Fair (  | talk | history | 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 conference, only sourcing found is primary. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - this thing is huge. It's spread over 15 exhibit halls. The best way to comprehend the magnitude is to look at the satellite image. It's held at the Messe Düsseldorf, one of the few places in the world big enough to hold it. The Las Vegas Convention Center is the only venue in North America bigger than Messe Düsseldorf. MEDICA's the biggest healthcare show/gathering in the world. 5,000+ companies have exhibits there. When COVID's not around, almost 100,000 people from around the world attend.
That's not nothin' -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 21:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 21:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Warning: independent refs are challenging to find. My experience so far:
  • German newspaper articles cited in the German article are mostly behind paywalls. Sorry, I don't care enough to pay.
  • 5,000 companies all issue press releases touting what they're bringing to the show. These clutter a Google News search.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 21:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Faithbooking

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

There are 3 citations on this article:

  • A book titled "The therapist's notebook for integrating spirituality in counseling". This looks like a very serious book, and I think it is, but according to google books it contains the word "faithbook" nowhere.
  • I can't find a copy of "100 Creative Activities for Sabbath" but it was written by an author who seems to churn out list-of-activity books. Doesn't seem particularly reliable.
  • I also can't find a copy of Pages of Faith: The Art of Spiritual Scrapbooking where this neologism no doubt originates, but this article also seems to have been created pretty shortly after the book was published.

In summary, I think this fails WP:NOTNEO BrigadierG ( talk) 17:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete -- per nom. No RS discuss this term, only random blogs. NOTNEO is exactly the right reason to deep six this fluff. Central and Adams ( talk) 20:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agree with both of the above, and the article is furthermore loaded with WP:OR. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 20:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I tend toward inclusionism and even I can't find a shred of reason for this article to exist. It ticks boxes for all the greatest hits: NN, NEO, OR and maybe PROMO. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 18:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Devoke water 10:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Michael Van Praet

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG, and he apparently has not played professional football for the CFL or NFL. PK T(alk) 17:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Anchordown

Anchordown (  | talk | history | 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 valid citations to confirm notability. ZimZalaBim talk 16:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Unsourced and unverifiable. I couldn't find anything with a cursory web search, save for the usual non-usable primary sources like Bandcamp and Youtube. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 20:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Francoforte

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

Same as the previous reasoning at the AfD less than a month ago which resulted in a "soft delete" decision. References fail to meet GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Article was restored but not worked on, no improvements. HighKing ++ 16:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Zim Afro T10

Zim Afro T10 (  | talk | history | 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 cricket competition, appearing on the WP:OFFICIALCRICKET list of tournaments considered non-notable (T10 cricket matches). Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. StickyWicket aka AA ( talk) 12:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - Zim Afro T10 is probably fastest T10 league, with players from most ICC member countries. Also TV broadcasters exist from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, UK, Caribbean, Zimbabe among others. The tournament has already started and it was a great success. The article is very outdated currently. In fact, I came here to learn more about tournament and the teams, so there must be an audience to whom this article would serve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leghari k ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - This is a new tournament which is going to start soon. Many well-known Zimbabwen players like Sikander Raza, Craig Ervine, Sean Williams are playing in the league. Many foreign players from test status countries like Taskin, Mushfiq, Robin Uthapa, Yusuf Pathan many more are playing. Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt bought Harare Hurricanes team in the league. It’s a notable upcoming cricket league. Jit Saha255 ( talk) 19:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - This is similar to the Abu Dhabi T10 and the several pages of this tournament that exist. Zimbabwe is a full member and the League has several if not all the players from full member organization. 166.198.21.8 ( talk) 12:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I'll just note that this article was originally a simple redirect to T10 cricket#Zim Afro T10. GreekApple123 ( talk) 16:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is support for Keep and Redirection. Please take a moment and evaluate new sources to see if they can contribute to notabiiity for a stand-alone article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • The article has three sources, one of which is perfectly fine, one of which appears primary, and one of which appears to be a press release. Given it hasn't started yet and needs only one more source, either redirecting, draftifying, or finding an additional source are all valid options here. SportingFlyer T· C 20:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • We might want to consider merging either to or from 2023 Zim Afro T10 for starters - that can be recreated if we ever get a second edition (with this sort of league this is far from certain). It primarily contains scorecards which are basically statsdumps from external links and pretty much fail most things without prose to place them in context. I've gutted both articles of the trivia and so on and there's not a huge amount left. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 19:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Regardless of the outcome of this AFD, I don't believe we need a season article for every season. Depending on the outcome of this AFD, I will be nominating that article for deletion or merging (depending on whether this article is deleted or kept). Just because an event may have multiple seasons, that doesn't mean we need a season article for every season of this tournament. The tournament itself is struggling to demonstrate notability, so each season definitely won't have enough coverage to independently pass WP:GNG. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's probably a waste of time, considering that we do allow pages on seasons, and the additional sources that have been added to this since I commented ten days ago clearly pass WP:GNG, showing the season article probably passes WP:GNG as well. We can merge in a year if this only has one season. SportingFlyer T· C 12:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect The redirect seems better, it's almost TOOSOON at this point. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The references seem to indicate that it passes WP:GNG. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 10:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Now clearly passes WP:GNG after updates. SportingFlyer T· C 12:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep seems to pass WP:GNG. Not sure about the season article, but this seems to be a reasonable keep, bearing WP:WORLDWIDE in mind and the fact that it seems to have received coverage from a range of sources. Park3r ( talk) 01:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

AlphaPets

AfDs for this article:
AlphaPets (  | talk | history | 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 has been unsourced since 2009, and I could not find any more good sources. QuicoleJR ( talk) 16:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was deleted by Bbb23 as a G3‎. ( non-admin closure) Heavy Water ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Gaz Adele 2130

Gaz Adele 2130 (  | talk | history | 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 significant biography, no references, seemingly self written or written by a friend -- NotCharizard 🗨 15:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Enos733 ( talk) 17:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Immanuel Ness

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

Paid for promo/COI. He has a very low citations count. There is no way he meets WP:GNG. Oluwatoniyi ( talk) 15:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 28. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 15:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Colorado, and New York. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I see evidence of Ness passing GNG in the citations. Fix the COI issues, keep the article.-- User:Namiba 19:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think it is probably a keep based on potentially as an author passing WP:NAUTHOR combined with his work as editor of some journals. They are oxford university press journals, quite low but it its a low citations field. I think there is more than enough to pass WP:GNG. The article needs about 20 hours worth of work to clean to references and add additional references. There is bits of it that are cited to single refs and don't cover it properly per WP:V. The image of Ness, he looks like "Death warmed up". Perhaps a better image? scope_creep Talk 08:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: passes WP:NAUTHOR for having reviews of his academic books, and I would say also passes WP:NPROF on the grounds of being the editor of several encyclopedias. -- asilvering ( talk) 01:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep his edited scholarly books are important--he succeeds in bringing together lots of established scholars writing essays for his encyclopedic multivolume worked on major topics. Rjensen ( talk) 06:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Baltar. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ( talk) 16:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Baltar (Battlestar Galactica)

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

Unsourced OR combination of two characters who are similar but not the same. Additionally, the characters are already covered elsewhere. QuicoleJR ( talk) 15:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. QuicoleJR ( talk) 15:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. No evidence of independent notability. WJ94 ( talk) 16:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The nom is nonsensical--since when is it OR to discuss together two characters from two retellings of one story? It's not in dispute that both Baltars are notable characters, just whether or not this is a good summation of the two separate but similarly named characters. But does any RS treat the disparate characters as a subject worthy of comparison and contrast? Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy: Knowledge Here Begins Out There, by Jason Eberl, ISBN 9781444356571, appears to... but I ran out of preview pages before I got to the next-to-last chapter where I think it does. It's entirely worthwhile to cite both character sketches in this combination from the RS in their respective articles, but I don't see a policy-based reason for deleting this. Jclemens ( talk) 00:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    1. Both Baltars being notable is definitely in dispute, seeing as Count Baltar just had an AFD that closed as merge.
    2. I do not see how this is not a redundant CFORK of Gaius Baltar and Count Baltar/ List of Battlestar Galactica characters.
    3. One book is not enough to prove that the concept is notable.
    QuicoleJR ( talk) 01:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    1. Rather poor form of you to not mention a related AfD that appears to have been closed within a day prior to your starting this one. Obviously, I missed it, because this article would have been a better merge target.
    2. The fact that you are ignorant of WP:SS as an organizational technique is easily rectified; by all means, go read about it.
    3. One book is enough to demonstrate that your BEFORE was lacking and the topic merits further investigation and discussion. Jclemens ( talk) 06:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Convert to a dab page with two entries. There's no need to regurgitated plot details and actors' names. Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the bigger disambig as linked above. No need for this sub-disambig that clearly has mutated into a very poor article. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Baltar; unnecessary glorified DAB page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 11:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to DAB where this is already covered in a more organized way. As is, this is just a poorer DAB, with no hope of expansion into a properly sourced article. Shooterwalker ( talk) 00:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 15:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Jabhat Ansar Al Sham

Jabhat Ansar Al Sham (  | talk | history | 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 does not meet guidelines to be published to Wikipedia, including non-encyclopedic material and lack of citations. A draft already exists. Significa liberdade ( talk) 14:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Syria. Kpg jhp jm 16:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Article is very poorly written . a quick search brings up some mentions of groups of the same name and ones related to it but no real WP:SIGCOV. Kpg jhp jm 16:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    If this was 2015-2017 you could find on there website but in these times the world wws focused on isis not new rebel groups fighting against assad Libya345433 ( talk) 18:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: Bit of an unsourced, atrociously written trainwreck. Even if this group exists, and a page supported with reliable sources could be produced, this is so from what that would look like that it's an obvious case of WP:TNT. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
for 1 they do exist 2 its my first edit Libya345433 ( talk) 18:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
the draft i made is unfinished unlike the page i made Libya345433 ( talk) 18:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
For future reference, when a draft is ready to be published to the mainspace, you'll want to use Wikipedia's Move feature (see WP:Drafts#Moving drafts to mainspace. If moved, the draft will automatically be deleted. In a situation like this, having that draft deleted means we would be able to move the current article back into the draft space instead of deleting it. Significa liberdade ( talk) 20:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
so the jabhat Ansar Al Sham page isnt getting deleted? Libya345433 ( talk) 20:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
That is yet to be decided. At present, the article is being proposed for deletion for not meeting the standards of a Wikipedia article. If the present article is deleted, the draft would still exist. While the discussion is occurring, you can continue to make changes to the article to improve it and prove it is worthwhile to exist as a Wikipedia article. Significa liberdade ( talk) 22:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Unsourced, filled with BLP violations, as written it would be more work to fix than to start over, agree with TNT suggestion.  //  Timothy ::  talk  21:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    i would rather try to fix than to start over Libya345433 ( talk) 22:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    and its perfect the way it is people can edit to make it better but its correct the way i did it wnd why put my other page (Islamic front in aleppo) as a draft that was perfect to i wish people would stop messing around with my stuff Libya345433 ( talk) 22:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Libya345433: As others have noted here and on your talk page, these articles are not perfect. The biggest issue right now is that this page, as well as your Islamic front in aleppo page, are completely unsourced. Without sources, the pages run into multiple issues, most of which would mean the pages do not belong on Wikipedia. For instance, without references, the information on the page cannot be verified as true, and the topic cannot be confirmed as notable (important). If the page does not meet these two basic criteria, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
    Further, please note that Wikipedia is not yours. It belongs to people all over the world and is intended to be used as a free, valuable, and importantly, credible resource. Again, without references, Wikipedia loses its value and credibility.
    I hope you can understand this. Moving/deleting your pages is not a personal attack on you. We encourage you to continue editing your pages in the draft space, then submitting them for review before publishing them in the mainspace. Significa liberdade ( talk) 20:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Another very similar article from this author with the same issues here Islamic front in aleppo.  //  Timothy ::  talk  01:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Is an absolute trainwreck. Even if there was a shred of notability, it would have to be blown up. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 10:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is my first one at least leave it be dont have it deleted please Libya345433 ( talk) 04:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. signed, Rosguill talk 02:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

All India Tanzeem-e-Insaaf

All India Tanzeem-e-Insaaf (  | talk | history | 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 Wikipedia:GNG DSP2092 talk 14:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Newry City F.C.

The result was procedural keep.‎ Boldly closing this discussion as deletion is not a realistic prospect. A merge discussion at Talk:Newry City F.C. and/or Talk:Newry City A.F.C. can be started if anyone wishes to do so. ( non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 15:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply


Newry City F.C. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page is no longer necessary, given how close a resemblance the two clubs are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portsfc1887 ( talk • contribs) 08:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Notwithstanding that this AfD nomination appears to be malformed and incomplete, deletion is not cleanup. If there are two subjects with overlap, that is normally addressed with a merge. See WP:MERGEREASON (for when to consider a merge) and WP:MERGEINIT (for how to propose a merge). There is no reason to delete this title and the nom doesn't assert a policy-based rationale to do so. Keep. Guliolopez ( talk) 13:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Northern Ireland. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep - it can be a bit of a grey area when a football club goes bust and is "re-formed" as to whether the two clubs should be considered the same or separate. if they are separate, then having two articles is valid. If they are the same, then they should be merged. Either way, deleting this article is not the appropriate course of action -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 15:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Mike Robinson (environmentalist)

Mike Robinson (environmentalist) (  | talk | history | 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:BLP of an environmental campaigner, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for activists. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have articles just because they have jobs, and have to show third-party coverage and analysis about their work to establish that it's been externally validated as significant -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as his staff or contributor profiles on the self-published websites of organizations he's been directly affiliated with, and even the very few citations that lead to real WP:GNG-worthy media are not coverage about Mike Robinson, but just briefly namecheck Mike Robinson as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of sufficient media coverage to pass WP:GNG. Also there's a likely conflict of interest, as the creator's username has the initials of an organization the subject is closely associated with in it. To be fair, they complied with COI rules by creating it in draft, but then somebody else perfunctorily submitted it to the AFC queue two days ago, and then almost immediately moved it into mainspace themselves without waiting for a proper AFC review — but the fact that the COI existed in the first place still means the draft required heightened analysis by an established AFC reviewer, which can't just be bypassed like that. Bearcat ( talk) 14:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 01:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Jake Metcalfe

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. The only reference in the article does not pertain to the subject at all. A WP:BEFORE check only came up with WP:ROUTINE passing mentions from his various roles, with nothing that would pass for WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun ( talk) 13:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • This comment sums up the decline of Wikipedia in a nutshell. When this article was created in 2006, there were still people around who understood that the purpose of a biography is to credibly tell the story of someone's life. Nowadays, between running off many editors with common sense and gaslighting newbies who don't know any better, we've twisted things to where the intent of a biography is to mindlessly repeat whatever detritus one finds lying around through a Google search and nothing more. You should really take a good look at some of the articles created in recent years with that mindset, consisting of a random series of sentences connected solely by the presence of citations at the end. Many of them are an absolute embarrassment to read and serve little purpose other than to enforce the real-world perception of Wikipedia as a haven for the autistic. Here's the real BLP issue. As the opening paragraph states, "On July 30, 2007, Metcalfe announced his intention to run for Alaska's At-large congressional district in 2008". On August 7, 2007, the article received its only substantial improvement from a user whose only contributions to the project were those edits. Meanwhile, nearly 16 years has passed between those edits and today and people are still grasping for other things to blame? Unfknbelieveable! RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • 1) It's not a good look to falsely imply that the article only contains one source. I see several sources but only one properly formatted citation.
I turned them into citations so that it is easier to see what is there. I didn't make all of them complete but I think it is now possible to understand. Lamona ( talk) 02:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
2) It's not a good look to say or do nothing while someone is a candidate for office, then come back well after the fact claiming they're non-notable for the same reasons that applied back when the article served as free publicity for their campaign, yet that has occurred over and over again across the encyclopedia for years.
3) It's not a good look when philosophies which worked for years on this site are changed on a whim to satisfy those pushing a starkly black-and-white view of notability. For a long time, NPOL generally referred to statewide political leaders. He qualifies in that regard as a state chair of a major political party, an office he held at the time the article was created. There's also Category:State political party chairs of Alaska and we tell people that categories reflect defining characteristics of notability. In the context of Alaska, the Anchorage School Board is a major office. Anchorage School District enrollment has comprised about five to eight percent of Alaska's entire population in recent decades. School board members in Anchorage serve areawide, which means his constituency consisted of eight times more people than a state senator. Are you telling me that's irrelevant because of whatever one-size-fits-all view Wikipedians have about particular titles? Without giving serious regard to what makes a biography a biography (as someone mentioned to you in another AFD, WP:ROUTINE has nothing to do with biographies), you turn this project into a directory of holders of titles. WP:NOTDIR is a policy, whereas the pages you refer to above are only guidelines. Last I checked, we're supposed to give more weight to something if it's a policy. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Metcalfe is mentioned in passing in the context of routine events, which is the point I was aiming to make, although I admit I could've made it better. The last time I saw, wikipedia is not a textbook, and if you want NPOL to include school board members, make a proposal in the appropriate channels. Let'srun ( talk) 01:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete nothing we can use for notability, as explained above. Old article, different times when it was created. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I dug up some articles and left links at Talk:Jake Metcalfe. I had to quit before I could read them all. I think any notability will come from his being a long-time political fixture in Juneau and a powerful labor leader, not a failed election campaign. A major player at the capitol from the way it looked to me.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 10:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for digging up the articles, A. B.. I looked at all of the ones that weren't paywalled, and in each case it was a brief mention of Metcalfe in an article about someone else. There is nothing that I see that is better than the sources in the article, and those don't support GNG in my opinion. All of what we have about him is routine reporting on his time in office. I'm going with delete but will check back in case someone finds a gem. Lamona ( talk) 23:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors more or less agree that specific coverage of the subject doesn't quite meet GNG, and that relevant information can be included in myriad other articles about Russian relations with the countries of the Arab League. signed, Rosguill talk 02:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Arab League–Russia relations

Arab League–Russia 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)

WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH. Random WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" table data dump was already removed per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables. What remains does not really amount to anything: we've got a map, we've got an old 2009 picture of RF ex-president Medvedev and AL ex-sec-gen Moussa, we've got a completely WP:UNSOURCED and irrelevant section about the "Russian-Arab Business Council" that has nothing to do with the Arab League, but is instead a combo of 18 bilateral business councils of Russia with 18 Arab states (so not even all 22 member states of the Arab League), then a random See also section, then some more external links WP:PROMO for the irrelevant business councils, and some guy's WordPress blog, then two templates and two categories. That's it. This isn't an article. It's random vague stuff lumped together. In theory it is a legitimate topic, but we should WP:TNT this because the current mess isn't worth anyone's consideration. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 21:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Unsourced. Walks and talks like WP:SYNTH. Yilloslime ( talk) 18:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment After doing more research on this topic I found a Middle East Monitor article on the league's ambassador to Russia regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2019 and from the Pressenza IPA from April 2022 where Lavrov held a meeting with Arab States members. Russia in the past has lobbied for Syria's return to the Arab League where articles can be found on the subject. But I doubt this is enough to meet the sources and notability requirements to have this article stay as is. If this is deleted, then I have no problem with it regardless of my keep vote. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 21:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. While it provides some information on Russia-Arab League relations and the Russian-Arab Business Council, it lacks sufficient depth and breadth to justify its own page. The information could be more appropriately included as part of the broader articles on Russian foreign relations or the activities of the Arab League. 多少 战场 龙 ( talk) 13:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 draftify‎. Something with zero entries is obviously not a list, this is clearly a placeholder so per nom draft is the appropriate location. (non-admin closure) Reywas92 Talk 15:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Michelin starred restaurants in Colorado

List of Michelin starred restaurants in Colorado (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of Michelin starred restaurants in Atlanta (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two WP:TOOSOON lists placeholding for future content, but listing nothing at all as of today. It was recently announced that these regions will be getting Michelin Guide ratings for their restaurant scenes, but neither of them already have any restaurants rated yet as of today, so these lists both just go TBD right down the line.
Obviously they will become perfectly appropriate once the restaurants and their ratings are actually announced, and it would be perfectly valid to hold on to them as draft or sandbox pages in the meantime, but they aren't already needed in mainspace now. Creating mainspace articles is not difficult enough that we would need to maintain boilerplate placeholders weeks or months in advance of any actual content for them. Bearcat ( talk) 13:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 13:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

CP 009 Évidemment

CP 009 Évidemment (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article about a song, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NSONGS. As always, every song is not automatically entitled to its own standalone Wikipedia article just because it exists, and has to have notability claims (charting, awards, coverage and analysis about the song in media, etc.) and reliable sourcing to support that -- but existence is the only notability claim being attempted here, and no referencing is cited at all. Bearcat ( talk) 13:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to Reasonability. Star Mississippi 13:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Reasonableness

Reasonableness (  | talk | history | 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 seems very vague, and covers too many different contexts. I can see a merge request with Reasonability on the page, but am not 100% sure if this is the best course of action. Would appreciate further input. GnocchiFan ( talk) 13:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per WP:NOTDICT, and the reasonability article along with it. If anyone can find secondary sources that discuss the concept of reasonableness in the context of other legal constructs then I could see the point of the article, but not in its current form. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 14:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, I do see a few legitimate sources in the article, maybe it could be renamed Reasonableness (legal norm). Alaexis ¿question? 14:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Law, and Politics. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, as creator of the former. The concepts of reasonableness / reasonability are core to modern political theory and jurisprudence, and also have distinct uses in criminal, administrative, contract and constitutional law. As for "vagueness" and WP:NOTDICT - see WP:BROAD, and compare with articles like Justice, Rationality and Morality, and with Fairness - which is tagged for article creation, rather than deletion. François Robere ( talk) 14:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Rename + merge Agree that Reasonability should be merged with. The concept appears everywhere in the law and across legal systems, maybe can give a proper scope with something like The concept/principle of reasonableness in law (avoid parentheses as it is not really disambiguation as such?). Selfstudier ( talk) 14:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Selfstudier: How do you propose we deal with the concept of reasonableness in political science, which underlies some of its legal uses? François Robere ( talk) 15:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I wouldn't personally, except to the extent that an allusion to it might fit somewhere in an article dealing with the purely legal aspects. Unlike the principal topic where the concept is bounded in practice, I doubt there is much to say there that is similarly constrained eg discussing what does reasonableness even mean? Selfstudier ( talk) 16:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Alexy (in Reasonableness and Law, 2009) starts with the statement that "in order to be able to say what the reasonableness of law is, one has to know what “reasonableness” in general means" (curiously, he provides no clear answer). He then proceeds to discuss the meanings of "reasonableness" in political science, then in jurisprudence. I wouldn't say one is more ambiguous or exact ("constrained") than the other, and they certainly overlap in the definitional and normative parts; I think we should cover these two as theoretical background, otherwise we'd be left with a few gaping holes around the question of "what exactly is 'reasonableness' and where did it come from". Incidentally, Rawls is mentioned in that book roughly 287 times, and it's not the only source that ties the two subjects (just from a cursory look, we also have Hevia (2013), Zipursky (2015), and Mangini (2018)), so there's obviously some discussion to be had there. François Robere ( talk) 18:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    curiously, he provides no clear answer Right, because in general it is a philosophical question. I still think it is better to have a page primarily on the legal aspects and without disambiguation. Should someone want to try and make a page out of the (many) other aspects of reasonableness ("How Can I Tell If My Algorithm Was Reasonable" below, for instance) that's doable too but then I don't think there is a concept/principle/standard that is as easy to get one's hands around as it is for the law, which is already tricky enough. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Rename + merge per Selfstudier. Reasonable is a very very common concept in law and can have quite specific legal definitions dependent upon case law. Talpedia 15:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and merge per above. The definition of reasonability is quite complex in a legal context and involves a number of legal concepts. Some articles that touch upon the notion of reasonableness include Man on the Clapham omnibus, A moron in a hurry, Person having ordinary skill in the art, Prudent man rule, Objective standard (law), Reasonable person, Duty of care. Dawkin Verbier ( talk) 15:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Merge to Reasonability: I think there may be a good reason to keep this page around given the 2023 Israeli judicial reform#Abolition of "unreasonableness" grounds centering on this legal concept. Adding a section on the concept of Reasonableness in Israeli would resolve the DICTDEF issue, make the article more encyclopedic, and distinguish it from the redirect nominations presented. Also, for full disclosure, I am a lawyer so that may be affecting my vote. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 16:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Just a particular case, probably comes from British law in the first instance, there are a few things in Israeli legal system coming from there; "unreasonableness" is just propspeak, the concept (or standard) is still reasonableness. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's fair and I'll change my vote. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 17:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep/Merge with Reasonability. Agree that we don't need both pages, but reasonability as a legal concept is incredibly ubiquitous and important. There are tons of secondary sources discussing this concept in relation to law - below are just a few from academic journals in the last decade:
    • Kevin P. Tobia, How People Judge What Is Reasonable, 70 Ala. L. Rev. 293 (2018)
    • Alan Calnan, The Nature of Reasonableness, 105 Cornell L. Rev. Online 81 (2020)
    • Brian Sheppard, The Reasonableness Machine, 62 B.C. L. Rev. 2259 (2021)
    • Karni A. Chagal-Feferkorn, How Can I Tell If My Algorithm Was Reasonable?, 27 Mich. Tech. L. Rev. 213 (2021)
    • Benjamin C. Zipursky, Reasonableness in and Out of Negligence Law, 163 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2131 (2015)
Legal search engines ( WestLaw, LexisNexis) return tens of thousands of results just among secondary sources (direct links are difficult because West charges an arm and a leg and sometimes the articles are otherwise paywalled). I don't think the name matters much, (Reasonableness, Reasonability, Reasonable (legal norm/concept/maxim), etc.) but the substance of the current Reasonableness page should be kept in one place or another. Kalethan ( talk) 16:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and split and disambiguate. The legal concept satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. The article is not a mere definition, and therefore does not violate WP:NOT. "Reasonableness" is the WP:COMMONNAME of the legal concept. Reasonability should be merged into the article on the legal concept. The political concept should be WP:SPLIT to a separate article. Some of the sources in the article are not the best available or the best starting point for the legal concept. The best place to look for the legal concept is periodical articles about law (rather than politics or philosophy): [30] [31]. That confirms that there are a large number of entire periodical articles about the legal concept, including, amongst many others, [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. The coverage in those articles satisfies GNG and goes far beyond a definition. That establishes that GNG is satisfied and the article does not violate NOT. For the avoidance of doubt, reasonableness is a single concept. The fact that is used in other (compound) concepts does not change that. The fact that it is possible to speak of a "reasonable time" does not mean that either Time or Reasonableness is "just a word". The fact that it is possible to speak of a "reasonable person" does not mean that either Person or Reasonableness is "just a word". And so on. This AfD nomination is like saying that we should get rid of the article Time because it possible to speak of proper time, daylight saving time, unix time, reasonable time, planck time and a multitude of other times. James500 ( talk) 20:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 13:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hasan Al Moustafa

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

Created at a time when notability standards were much lower. No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC from the references provided. Best I can find in Indian football coverage is Indian Sports News, a trivial mention, and Sportskeeda, which only mentions him twice. Best source I can find in Arabic is Kooora, a database source, which doesn't confer notability. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to E.A.T. (TV program)#Hosts. ( non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie ( talk) 01:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Carren Eistrup

Carren Eistrup (  | talk | history | 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:BIO RMXY ( talk) 10:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗ plicit 01:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The Entertainer (The Belle Stars song)

The Entertainer (The Belle Stars song) (  | talk | history | 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 do not think this meets the criteria for WP:NSONG as it appears to have virtually no coverage online from any notable sources. It also appears to have only barely charted in one country. Yellowfrog81 ( talk) 18:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Don't have time to look through all of them, but the Internet Archive has a long list of potential sources which could be of use to this article. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 05:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Hello,
I looked through the sources on the Internet Archive and it seems that most of them only list very basic information about the song (e.g. "The Belle Stars came out with a new single called "The Entertainer"") and do not discuss it in depth. I only found one article which provides a description of the song's music video, but I do not believe that information would give the Wikipedia article adequate substance. Yellowfrog81 ( talk) 21:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed, no opinions have need voiced
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 06:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. Analog coverage issue here, but signs point toward it meeting GNG.
    1. From the article, [44]
    2. A bit of SIGCOV about how the band was glad to work with a woman producer who let them play their own instruments resulting in this single. [45]
    3. Here is a blog quoting a review of the single in a magazine [46]. Here's another blog that suggest the issue of that magazine it was printed in. [47] Seems pretty likely this review exists.
    4. "Visual coverage" where where a youth magazine published the lyrics with a photo and some art [48]
— siro χ o 05:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Rough consensus is that WP:NOTNEWS applies: not everything that's in the news is encyclopedic. This can change if the person or the case get sustained, substantial and high-quality media coverage. Sandstein 08:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Barbie Kardashian case

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

Seems to be a BLP1E behind a "case" moniker. Passing similarity to another case, notable or not does not affect this article. — siro χ o 08:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: badly written for sure. This article should focus on the case itself instead of being a shell to the "Barbie Kardashian" person. That said, I am not sure how well does WP:BLP1E apply here. If we treat it as a case, then it has some notability (the spectator.co.uk source is not reliable, but we may also consider independent.ie, or the local source limerickleader.ie). -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 09:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I would also be open to TNT, since the title could be notable. It is the content that really needs some re-work. TheLonelyPather ( talk) 12:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
You're welcome to improve it by reworking it. Jim 2 Michael ( talk) 18:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm not personally seeing how WP:GNG, WP:CRIMINAL, WP:NOTNEWS or WP:LASTING are met here. Notwithstanding that it is unclear what "case" is the subject of the article (the person's conviction or the question about place of incarceration?), this article only seems to exist on the basis of run-of-the-mill reporting (which we might find for any crime/conviction) and possible WP:OSE/ WP:INHERIT stretches to connect with the more high-profile (and hence notable) Scottish "case". (In short, yes there is/was coverage of this person's conviction/incarceration, but how does it rise to the level that exceeds the threshold(s) expected by NCRIMINAL/NOTNEWS/LASTING/1E?). Guliolopez ( talk) 14:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because, like the Isla Bryson case - which no-one has suggested deleting - it's notable & reliably sourced. They've both been discussed & reported internationally, as well as commented on by political leaders. It's far from run-of-the-mill. BK isn't notable, nor are her crimes or sentence. However, her imprisonment & the reaction to it is. A journalist asked Leo Varadkar about the case. There's a petition to move BK because many people say she should be imprisoned with men rather than women, due to her being biologically male & retaining her male genitals. Were BK a cisgender man or cisgender woman, there'd be no notability to the case. Jim 2 Michael ( talk) 21:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Sources are not sufficient in number or quality to show that this passes GNG or BLP1E. Rab V ( talk) 02:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
How many sources does the article need? Jim 2 Michael ( talk) 18:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The petition to remove BK from the women's section of the prison has existed since 2020. Does that count as coverage? Jim 2 Michael ( talk) 18:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Is Change.org a reliable source? – RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ ( 💬 •  📝) 18:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
It's not the only notable source. The article includes refs from The Irish Times & the Irish Examiner. Jim 2 Michael ( talk) 19:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Trevor Purt

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

Only 1 article links to this. Coverage merely confirms roles he's held or statements he's said representing his employer and not WP:SIGCOV. There are elements of an WP:ATTACK page with the controversies section. LibStar ( talk) 05:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Article's creator, Rathfelder was indefinitely community-banned] for multiple abuses, including creating attack BLPs where they had a conflict of interest. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 04:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Based on this and the fact the creator's COI was in the same subject area, I think the way forward (as per WP:ATTACK) would be to reduce this page to a stub - removing all of the tangentially connected information about the controversies linked to the subject. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 12:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete this was an attack page, nothing we should be keeping. Hardly notable, he said stuff people didn't like. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - currently appears to be a minor C-suite executive in a fairly minor corporation. Previously a senior NHS executive. Neither, as far as I can tell, give sufficient notability. It is claimed that he has a university title (Professor) but I have not been able to verify that this is more than a visiting/honorary title. Other than that, there are fairly local controversies relating to previous public sector jobs. I can't see that any of this amounts to much. JMWt ( talk) 08:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete While the coverage is borderline on WP:BASIC, I think the BLP issues especially with respect to the creator mean it's worth deleting history instead of trying to recover something from this. — siro χ o 09:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Brunei–Spain relations

AfDs for this article:
Brunei–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)

Last AfD was kept on the basis of keep !voters saying relations exist and sources would be available, I find no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of these relations. The article is still largely based on a primary source. LibStar ( talk) 05:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Per lack of significant coverage. Yilloslime ( talk) 15:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Many of the keep !votes in the last AfD were based off of the fact that relations exist, which doesn't necessarily mean notability. Some of the keep !votes mentioned a war between Spain and Brunei in 1578, however as Curbon7 said at that AfD, there has been little diplomatic interaction since. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 23:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Dead man's hand in popular culture

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

Effectively another list of works that mention topic foo, here, list of works that mention dead man's hand, violating WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, MOS:TRIVIA, WP:IPC and WP:NOTTVTROPES, in descending order of issues faced ( WP:V too I guess, given lack of footnotes for most stuff here). Some of the stuff is not even clearly related like "Big Boss Brewing in Raleigh, NC, brews a beer called "Aces and Ates."" I doubt any of that trivia merits merger to Dead man's hand, but perhaps a SOFTDELETE redirect could be implemented (sadly, that article doesn't even has a stubby section on this topic, unless one considers the legacy section there, about the use of the related symbols by some American police departments, as such - but that section there is based on primary sources, so hey, did I mentioned WP:OR yet? Sigh). This mess probably needs WP:TNT, and I am not sure a rewrite on Wikipedia is possible - this is probably something best left to https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeadMansHand for now, I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Popular culture, Lists, and United States of America. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: "... In popular culture" articles that are pure lists need to die out. There is no encyclopedic information to be gleaned here. The fact that some songs reference a famous thing is not a reason for there to be an article about those references. Why? I Ask ( talk) 06:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If someone can think up with a way to trim, merge, and make the list fit the main article without violating the list of policies and guidelines the nom listed, I will support it, but right now the list is unfortunately a mess and will need WP:TNT. Ping me if anything comes up. — siro χ o 06:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete needs WP:TNT as the majority is not verified and therefore is just assertion by the editor(s) who wrote it. Seems unlikely to me that independent sources could be found to cite all this trivia. JMWt ( talk) 08:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nothing but mostly unsourced trivia, no usable information here. Completely non-encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't know how it can be trimmed or merged. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 16:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As article creator way back, I created it to move the trivia temptation away from the important article because I hate trivia in here. However, I fear it will just find a new home back in the article. I guess we can try to keep it out as best we can. I have no problem trashing this article. I also did the same to the John Wesley Hardin and Bloody Mary (folklore) articles. (Did I mention I really hate trivia in an encyclopedia?) They can die, too, while we're at it. GenQuest "scribble" 17:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOTTVTROPES Dronebogus ( talk) 14:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thomas Pastor

Thomas Pastor (  | talk | history | 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 spiritual leader/person. Sourcing is almost nothing in RS, only hits are on his name for other people. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm working with this individual to improve the page, I've linked him from the Kwan Um School of Zen Wikipedia page. What does RS mean? Thank you for your time! Binkybonker ( talk) 16:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I will comment on your talk page about your question. - Aoidh ( talk) 17:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The article has no independent third-party sources, all being either directly affiliated with the individual or being interviews with the individual. I could not find any independent reliable sources online either; it doesn't help that both "Thomas Pastor" and "Ji Haeng" are names for many other people, meaning the search results for those names are full of other unrelated individuals. - Aoidh ( talk) 17:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • To add to the existing evidence

The page cites Thomas Pastor as the founder of the Zen Center of Las Vegas. However, the Zen Center of Las Vegas Wiki page does not list Thomas Pastor as the founder, but an entirely different monk. Is it one or the other? is it both?

Taizan Maezumi is cited as the founder of the Zen Center of Las Vegas (linked via Thomas Pastor page) yet Taizan Maezumi does not appear in Thomas Pastor page. Either these two did not know each other and the practices are different and should not be linked, or it's the same practice and they should be refered.

User:Tinndalos — Preceding undated comment added 05:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Little evidence of notability. None of the sources cited is independent of the subject while having extensive discussion of him, except possibly no. 14, which gave me a 404. (sources 1 and 4 are duplicates, as are 9 and 12.) Maproom ( talk) 22:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Maproom: Here is an archived copy of that reference, which is just a trivial mention that says the individual's name and what day they would be teaching at the retreat, which means it's not an independent source even if it wasn't a trivial mention. - Aoidh ( talk) 03:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comments: First, the photograph looks as if it was made with the cooperation of its subject. The photographer was Sanch1161, who was also the creator of this article. Is there perhaps a conflict of interest? Secondly, the article Thomas Pastor leads the reader to Kwan Um School of Zen, which has a gallery, from which we arrive at articles on Soenghyang, Dae Kwang, Wu Kwang, Bon Yeon and other figures whose notability isn't at all obvious to me -- and also to an article on Wubong, from which we learn such nuggets as "Zen practice [...] gives us the attainment of truth and a clear direction" and that the subject "left his body" at such and such a time: not, I think, "encyclopedic" material. -- Hoary ( talk) 07:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
{{Keep | [The significance of this page rests mainly on the fact that the subject is the last American to have been named a lineage holder by Suengsahn before his death. Suengsahn was noted for bringing Korean Buddhism to America. Locating suitable citations to support this article are mainly due to the age of the subject matter. The Americans given transmission from Seungsahn tended to be post beat generation poets, artists and professors but their work was vastly pre-internet. I have found additional citations for the subject including a feature in A Love Supreme: The Story of John Coltrane's Signature Album. Elvin Jones. Penguin Books.p. 157, an article about the subject in International Musician (back copy) as well as a feature in NPR’s Desert Companion and have added. The subject has multiple interviews including The Review Journal (largest Las Vegas newspaper est. 1908) as well as the Sun which are respectable, but it will take additional time to source additional journal citations given the pre-internet nature of when he was most active. ] }} MFoskett ( talk) 22:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC) — MFoskett ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
To demonstrate notability, a subject must meet one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, such as WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:NARTIST, WP:NBAND, et cetera. Receiving transmission, whatever the circumstances, is not a demonstration of notability for the purposes of Wikipedia. The sources that were added such as the Desert Companion are interviews which are not independent sources since all of the relevant information in those interviews is from the individual himself. The article as written and from what I could find online and in databases like WP:TWL and Newspapers.com/ NewspaperArchive does not show notability. - Aoidh ( talk) 22:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie ( talk) 01:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Didine Canon 16

Didine Canon 16 (  | talk | history | 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 musical performer. Not meeting anything for musical notability, no charted singles, no awards won. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Greetings everyone! I hope you're all doing well. Since this is my first time in this kind of discussion, I'm not entirely sure where the appropriate place to post this is. If my message is in the wrong section, please feel free to move it to the suitable one.
__
I've made updates to the articles by adding various sources. There are 16 local sources, including Ennahar and others, as well as international press like " Radio France" and " Egypt Today." The content mainly revolves around a rapper, who has achieved significant success. His YouTube channel has garnered over a billion views, and he's also dominating the top charts on platforms like Spotify and Deezer in the North African region. Additionally, he has acted in a successful series, and he is working with Netflix to produce a new series around his story.
When discussing awards, it's essential to consider the context of the African continent. Unlike the United States, where rap is a major industry with numerous awards and festivals, Africa doesn't have such events until now. Algeria, in particular, is predominantly known for its music style, RAI music, which receives most of the recognition and awards. However, rap is a new and emerging genre in the region, and Didine Canon 16, is leading the way as the number one rapper in North Africa, supported by the numbers and the sources.
Regards Riad Salih ( talk) 15:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:BASIC for having wide news coverage. Possibly he may have some chart rankings based on provided info, but I have not researched it. Naomijeans ( talk) 17:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as has reliable sources coverage for WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as explained. Riad Salih ( talk) 15:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as explained.-- Panam2014 ( talk) 12:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Popcore Games

Popcore Games (  | talk | history | 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 game company, the only reliable source used is about a routine business transaction. No sourcing found in RS, nothing for notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Germany. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I overhauled some of the wording and wiped out the one-sentence Funding section per copyright violation concerns. I'm not encouraged here. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with regret. I used to play Parking Jam 3D all the time, but the only sources for the company are weekly charts, sale announcements, and a bunch of Russian stuff I can't read. QuicoleJR ( talk) 14:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Sourcing is insufficient to illustrate significant coverage for notability, with existing sources providing a limited foundation to describe the company and its games. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 01:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Modern Chinese characters

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

A POV-fork, and also clearly not a completed article. Walt Yoder ( talk) 03:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Not ready for mainspaceMeh it's fine where it is. It's not clear what constitutes a "modern Chinese character" (no mention of obselescence horizon). This reads like a very mild POVFORK and has entirely empty sections consisting only of headers. Some concepts are mentioned without being introduced (who is Professor Su?). It's not clear why the author chose to create this article in mainspace rather than contribute to existing articles.
    It seems like the author has put a lot of good faith effort into this article, and once it is finished it could serve as something like Introduction to Chinese characters, or split into bits and added to existing articles. I don't think the content should be deleted, but rather draftified or userfied. All the sources are reliable and as far as I can tell, all claims pass WP:V. Folly Mox ( talk) 04:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The article won an excellent score at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_China/New_articles.
    "Modern Chinese characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Ctxz2323 (talk · contribs · new pages (7)) started on 2023-07-15, score: 100" Ctxz2323 ( talk) 13:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    User:Ctxz2323, I think you have a really good start to an article here, and frankly I would have loved it if such an article had existed back when I first started learning Chinese. The "score" of 100 you're seeing is based on the text of your article matching regular expressions listed at User:AlexNewArtBot/China. What it means is that the article is 100% likely to be a Chinese topic, not that it is 100% excellent. I think you should consider moving the article into your userspace until you're finished with it. Folly Mox ( talk) 13:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Professor Su can be found via the citation [16]. He is a professor of Peking University, teaching "Modern Chinese Character".
" According to Professor Su's estimation, the total number of modern Chinese characters (in Mainland China) is about 10,000 and a bit more. [16] " Ctxz2323 ( talk) 13:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Agree that the article is not complete. But isn't it true that even a stud article may be published and grow on wiki? Ctxz2323 ( talk) 14:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep for lack of a valid rationale. Even the commenter who suggest it is not mainspace-ready sees potential in it. I am not seeing the WP:FORK here, and there are two book sources primarily about Modern Chinese, enough to indicate independent notability for an article on the topic. This article has TWO significant issues: uncited statements, and the fact that it occasionally feels like an essay if it broke the rule of not using the word "you", but AFD is not cleanup. User:HumanxAnthro ( BanjoxKazooie) 16:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The 2 "you" s in the article are in the first paragraph:
According to the latest data of Ethnologue, "Mandarin Chinese (the modern standard Chinese, also called Putonghua) is the largest language in the world, if you count only native speakers. If you count both native and non-native speakers, English is the largest (with Chinese being the 2nd largest)." And Chinese is written in Chinese characters.
They all appear in a direct quotation from the Ethnologue citation source. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 01:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you all for the informative discussion.
Now I agree to move the article into my userspace to make it more complete and mainspace-ready.
But, I have just got a message from User:Hey man im josh - Wikipedia, telling me that "the page Modern Chinese characters has been reviewed" (sent 12 hours ago). Does it mean it should stay in the mainspace now? Ctxz2323 ( talk) 00:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Walt Yoder and Hey man im josh: what do yall think? Mainspace development definitely isn't the norm anymore, but the article in progress here only has one incoming mainspace link, from Standard Chinese. I'm feeling overall meh about what namespace the article should be completed in. There aren't inaccuracies, just missing sections and some duplicated content. (And for the non-specialists, one source cited heavily in this article – Qiu Xigui (2000). 文字學概要 [Chinese Writing]. Translated by Gilbert Mattos; Jerry Norman. – is the number one best and most authoritative English-language source on the topic) Folly Mox ( talk) 14:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The main reason why I moved it out to Mainspace before it was completed is:
"Modern Chinese characters" is a big topic, and it keeps branching out new articles, (some of which are already reviewed, some got hundreds of visits already). And it seems it will take one year at least to have it and the sub-articles completed.
However, if you prefer to have it moved to some other namespace to be completed in, it will be ok for me.
By the way, I was the subject teacher of "Modern Chinese characters and Information Technology" in a university for over 10 years before my retirement 5 years ago. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 04:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Another reason: the first 5 sections of the article, including the Top, are completed. And there are cases where some volumes in a series of books are published before the others. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 06:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The following information just got from wiki might be useful for your consideration:
"curprev 13:36, 15 July 2023‎ Ctxz2323 talk contribs‎ m 18,374 bytes 0‎ Ctxz2323 moved page Draft:Modern Chinese characters to Modern Chinese characters: Publish page to mainspace undo"
"Modern Chinese characters · 7/14/2023 - 7/24/2023 · 322 pageviews"
"322" visits in 10 days. Does it mean wiki readers are interested in this article? If yes, then we should be more careful with it. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 02:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I totally agree with the idea that "Mainspace development definitely isn't the norm anymore." And understand that if an article is to be published incomplete, it must be exceptional and supported by sufficient reasons.
In the case of article "Modern Chinese characters", the reasons include:
  1. Out of the 7 articles I have published on Mainspace so far, "Modern Chinese characters" is the only one published incomplete, and there are reasons:
  2. If we are going to present a somewhat in-dept introduction to "Modern Chinese characters" (a big title), it will take at least one whole year to write, I am afraid.
  3. The article has already branched out 5 child and grand-child articles in the mainspace, 4 of which are already reviewed. If we refuse the grandpa/mum a seat while the children and grandchildren are sitting there, will it sound ridiculous?
  4. In the article, 5 sections with substantial contents are already completed. The file size is now at 24,455 bytes. It is not an empty article.
  5. The article "Modern Chinese characters" has recently been reviewed, if then be immediately deleted, will it bring a lot of why's from the readers, and be a laughing matter on our "wiki review work"?
  6. Data from wiki:
"Modern Chinese characters · 7/14/2023 - 7/24/2023 · 322 pageviews"
"curprev 13:36, 15 July 2023‎ Ctxz2323 talk contribs‎ m 18,374 bytes 0‎ Ctxz2323 moved page Draft:Modern Chinese characters to Modern Chinese characters: Publish page to mainspace undo"
322 pageviews in 10 days, does it means the readers are quite interested in this new article?
Sorry, I might have talked too much. But my intention is to provide you more relevant information. Thanks for your patience. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 03:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
User:Ctxz2323, I pinged the nom a few days ago and they haven't responded. From me, I personally withdraw any objection to article namespace. Thanks for your contributions; keep up the good work. Folly Mox ( talk) 14:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Many thanks!
Do I understand that the article is kept in the mainspace? I WILL try my best to make it better and better.
Thank you all again!
Thank God! Ctxz2323 ( talk) 22:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
AfDs usually run for seven days, so there's still a possibility that people will show asking the article be moved into your userspace, but given the level of participation so far that seems unlikely, so the article will probably remain in mainspace. Judging from the relief evident in your post immediately above this one, this conversation seems to have caused you some stress. If that is the case, I'd like to apologise for my contribution as a stressor. Happy editing! Folly Mox ( talk) 01:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
You are right! Having a Deleting label at the top of your article is stressing!
Thanks for your understanding! Ctxz2323 ( talk) 07:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This became a two person discussion and the nominator didn't withdraw their nomination. The article creator volunteered to move their article to User space and I'd like to hear from other editors on whether or not this should stay in the main space or be relocated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I prefer that the article stays in the main space, of course, instead of moving to my user space. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 07:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Let me reiterate the reasons why I prefer the article to stay in the main space, with the data updated:
  1. Out of the 9 articles I have published on the main space so far, "Modern Chinese characters" is the only one published incomplete, and there are reasons:
  2. If we are going to present a somewhat in-dept introduction to "Modern Chinese characters" (a big title), it will take at least one whole year to write, I am afraid. (having teaching this subject for over ten years in a university in Hong Kong)
  3. The article has already branched out, or spined off, 7 child and grand-child articles in the main space, 4 of which are already reviewed. If we refuse the grandpa/mum a seat while the children and grandchildren are sitting there, will it sound ridiculous?
  4. In the article, more than 5 sections with substantial contents are already completed. The file size is now at about 24,000 bytes. It is not an empty article.
  5. The article "Modern Chinese characters" has recently been reviewed, if then be immediately relocated or deleted, will it bring forth a lot of why's from the readers, and be a laughing matter on our "wiki review work"?
  6. Data from wiki: "Modern Chinese characters · 7/13/2023 - 8/2/2023 · 819 pageviews", "curprev 13:36, 15 July 2023‎ Ctxz2323 talk contribs‎ m 18,374 bytes 0‎ Ctxz2323 moved page Draft:Modern Chinese characters to Modern Chinese characters: Publish page to mainspace undo". 819 pageviews in 18 days since the page was moved to main space on July 15, does it mean the readers are quite interested in this new article? Is it OK if the article suddenly disappears from their view?
  7. More reference sources have been added and editing done according to the suggestions of the editors in this discussion.
Thank you for your attention and help! Ctxz2323 ( talk) 02:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep, per above Brachy08 (Talk) 04:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - seems to me that the topic is self-evidently notable and therefore deserves to be in mainspace. That said, there does need to be better editing to make it encyclopedic and reduce the total size of the page. My advice would be to work with relevant wikiprojects to clarify the topic and find a way to summarise the main points if there are to be other pages on related topics and subtopics. JMWt ( talk) 08:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and oppose moving to user or draft space. The topic is clearly notable and the article is already a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. I entirely reject the idea that articles should be approaching completion before they appear in main space. A gentle remark: it can be difficult for a subject matter expert to provide references. For an ignoramus like me it is easy because everything I know on a subject is gleaned from current reading. Make a huge effort to at least reference each paragraph. Thincat ( talk) 20:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Would you mind telling me where the POV (Point of View) fork lies in, so as to help improve the article? Ctxz2323 ( talk) 06:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Sorry I clicked [reply] to "A POV-fork, and also clearly not a completed article. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)",
and it appeared here above. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 06:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify or weak keep - the topic is clearly notable, and the parent page Chinese characters is quite long so not a straightforward merge situation. My reservation is that the article in its current state reads much more like a draft, especially with all the stub headings. Personally I would prefer this article be fleshed out more in draft space before returning to main. I don't see any reason to rush this into mainspace. If kept, I agree with others that attention should be brought to the relevant WikiProject for prompt work.
StereoFolic ( talk) 03:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Simplified Chinese, or Standard Chinese. This is an article ripe for merging, and though its execution likely means it should be TNT'd, it's notable as evidenced by the previous comments. Modern Chinese Characters as a single topic is best treated as one merged with Simplified Chinese characters given that the CCP under Mao modernized the language into removing all the necessary strokes for certain symbols, the character for fish (⿂ vs. ⻥) being one of the most glaring examples. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 03:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    "Modern Chinese characters" covers a larger range than the characters in either Simplified Chinese, or Standard Chinese.
    By the way, are you going to merge article Chinese characters into Chinese language? Ctxz2323 ( talk) 07:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I would not recommend the merging of the two pages you proposed. The characters are a subtopic to the language that is significant enough to warrant their own article. I don't see how this fits into this discussion. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 02:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Modern Chinese characters include modern traditional Chinese characters. How can you merge them into Simplified Chinese? Ctxz2323 ( talk) 02:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Simplified Chinese is not the only modernized Chinese language. Modern traditional Chinese is used in Taiwan and Hong Kong. And many Chinese language users are not living under the CCP.
    In fact, (⿂ and ⻥) are both modern Chinese characters. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 02:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, maybe there is a misunderstanding. You said "Merge into Simplified Chinese", and I understood your "Chinese" as Chinese language, not just Chinese characters. Ctxz2323 ( talk) 02:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Respectfully, User:InvadingInvader, the assertions equating simplified with modern, as well as those conflating language and writing system, are incorrect.
    Having taken a more thorough look at the article as it stands now, I'm a bit more in favour of a rename, although I'm struggling with an appropriate target. Dissatisfying ideas have included Modern usage of Chinese characters, Present status of Chinese characters, Modern Standard Chinese writing, Overview of modern Chinese writing, Current status and applications of Chinese characters, Chinese as She is Wrote, et al. I think a rename may be in order because the topic is not well defined: there are at least three authorities delimiting the set: the PRC State Council, Taiwan's Ministry of Education, and the Xinhua Zidian (leaving aside the Hong Kong pedagogical aide and authorities in Japan and Korea).
    I don't think there's a suitable merge target, but I would kindly recommend to the author MOS:TONE, since phrases like the existing Wiki articles, the purpose of this article (and its branching articles) etc. don't quite fit encyclopaedic tone. The remainder of the article after the lead seems pretty on point though. Folly Mox ( talk) 03:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Silcox, Manitoba

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

A nonexistent community back-formed from Silcox station. I can find no testimony to it as a settlement, and in the US at least we have consistently deleted these rail locations, where at least GNIS misleadingly labelled them as "populated places". In this case we don't seem to have even that. Mangoe ( talk) 03:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete It's basically a point on a map. No settlement there, the train stops to pick up wilderness adventurers, it's not easily accessible. I can't find notability for this place in any kind of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't even understand why we're calling it "Silcox station". It's a flag stop. Do we normally call these "stations"? There's no station, you literally have to call the railway company and tell them where you want the train to pick you up and drop you off. -- asilvering ( talk) 04:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Reply: Many flag stops are physical buildings. This one is now (it is only a signpost), but based on what I understand of Canadian railway history, it is likely to have been a physical building in the years when railways needed agents in stations to communicate with crews and customers. The use of radio and cheap long-distance telephony led to the elimination of many station agents, and the buildings were either demolished or allowed to deteriorate to the point that demolition became necessary. In a Canadian rail context, though, station does not always mean a building. It can simply be a named place on a timetable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
      I'm familiar with Canadian rail. My question was about Wikipedia norms. -- asilvering ( talk) 05:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The province of Manitoba appears to recognize this community. See this list of cities and towns on the province's website: Province of Manitoba,Infrastructure and Transportation. "Index to Cities and Towns | Transportation and Infrastructure | Province of Manitoba". www.gov.mb.ca. Retrieved 2023-07-28. A google search for Silcox is made difficult by several instances of Silcox as a surname. Travel Manitoba https://www.travelmanitoba.com/ doesn't seem to have a listing for Silcox. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Have a look: see a town here? [51]. -- asilvering ( talk) 05:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I found their "Populations for incorporated centres over 1 000 as per Statistics Canada 2016 figures." suspicious and checked. Here is the census for Silcox: [52]. That is to say, there isn't one - it's part of a large unorganized census division, and the entire population of the area is in the low hundreds, with a population density of 0.0. I'm not sure what the province used to make their list, but it's certainly not a list of "incorporated centres over 1000". That phrase is obviously misleading. (I have no guesses for what it could possibly mean otherwise in context.) -- asilvering ( talk) 05:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Actually going for the map in question is very revealing. First of all, the main page there is an outdated mess: in the case of Silcox, it says it's on a sheet which doesn't exist. But a look at this 2022 map tells all. It's easy to locate Churchill on the shore of Hudson Bay (because there isn't anything else man-made there), and as soon as you increase the magnification enough to see any detail at all, a thin line heading south from the town appears. This is the rail line in question, and on it are a series of "towns" exceedingly regularly spaced, among which may be found Silcox. The complete lack of roads or anything else except glacial lakes reveals these for the series of flag stops which they surely are. It would make sense to have a list of these in the train article, but it's patently clear they aren't real towns as soon as one gets away from highway maps, which not incidentally have a terrible record as far as these things go. Mangoe ( talk) 12:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Mangoe My favourite bit is how the Silcox station is barely closer to Silcox Creek than Thibaudeau. -- asilvering ( talk) 06:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. "There's no 'there' there" looking at satellite imagery at the coordinates listed. Look at the image for yourself -- bogs, bugs and boreal forest for miles. You'd have to wade or canoe to get to it. No siding or structure.
Also, Via Rail indicates the Silcox "station" is a sign post. My guess is that it's used by tourists (canoeists) in the summer.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silcox Creek -- Silcox ( talk) 15:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete for the lack of notability. Silcox ( talk) 03:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 21:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie ( talk) 01:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Statue of Josiah Quincy III

AfDs for this article:
Statue of Josiah Quincy III (  | talk | history | 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 have no idea why the first nomination was withdrawn but there's no real claim for notability (the survey mentioned is intended to be all-inclusive). An image in Quincy's article suffices. Mangoe ( talk) 02:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep. No notability? The statue was erected in 1879 in front of Boston's City Hall, a City Hall which was the official center of Boston government for the next 90 years. A major city like Boston, of such importance to the nation and its history, just doesn't toss up a statue of anybody in front of their City Hall for 90 years. One that's still sitting there at the historical site another 54 years later and apparently has survived the 2020s statue purge. Its only statue companion? Benjamin Franklin. The Quincy statue seems notable from common sense alone. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Without respect to this particular subject, Boston has hundreds of statues. Some indeed are notable, but nothing is notable just because it exists. What common sense dictates is that since notability standards have not yet been repealed, one must actually find sources. Ravenswing 04:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Location, location, location. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is the second time you've said a statue is notable because it exists. Please stop it. Now, sources have been added in part because it's in a prominent place, but if its notability is merely inherited from location, it should be merged to Old City Hall (Boston). Public buildings often have public art, but that doesn't inherently mean they need stand-alone articles unless there is significant independent coverage, and this is not a policy-based vote that a closing admin should give any weight to. Reywas92 Talk 13:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
There are plenty of sources, as mentioned by others below. My comment was about WP:COMMONSENSE, which is an aspect of WP:IAR (a major Wikipedia policy). Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
No, that's not common sense, because even if others find sources after you make a meaningless comment, there could still be a WP:NOPAGE argument to merge, perhaps even to something like Public art of Old City Hall (Boston). You didn't say "There are probably plenty of sources for something old downtown", you said "It's automatically notable because of where it is." Location is not and never has been an exemption to our notability standards. Reywas92 Talk 13:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Once again, WP:COMMONSENSE is an aspect of the policy WP:IAR, which my comment covers (referring to the maintaining of Wikipedia by not removing this statue's page). Can we please stop cluttering this discussion with a semantic dispute, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

El Watan (TV channel)

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

Fails WP:GNG; no sources. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 01:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider sources brought up in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • An Arabic-language source search would be quite useful. I am also attempting to figure out if the newspaper of the same name was a related business. The channel's closure did get covered in CNN Arabic [53]; the report linked indicates that there was a demonstration in front of Parliament in protest of its closure, and 18 people were arrested and brutalized by police. I would lean weak keep. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 20:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just giving a second relist. I know that we do have some editors who participate in AFDs who are familiar with Arabic and Arabic language sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the refs dug up above since the AfD started. Here's another one. [54]
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

David E. Smith

David E. Smith (  | talk | history | 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 is almost entirely uncited and does not meet BLP. The subject also does not meet WP:NBIO because they do not inherit notability from being associated with the Haight Ashbury Free Clinics. Ew3234 ( talk) 02:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete. Entirely uncited, the only source is a self-source. I did a quick search on the internet and there are nofew reliable sources about this person. There is a David Smith at the University of Michigan, who has a named professor appointment at the university, but it is unlikely to be the same person. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 07:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
A little more elaboration here. I am certain that David E Smith has published books, and that he is an adjunct prof at UCSF [55], but neither amounts to good notability. Maybe this article from the San Francisco Chronicle and this report from the UC system could establish some notability? He also got a NYTimes mention by the book he co-authored (see here). I think if someone works to rework this article, I can imagine it getting kept, but at this point I still would !vote weak delete. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 07:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Oxygen tetrafluoride

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

A hypothetical compound whose problems with existence start with the two extra electrons the first reference admits to and goes on from there—but not for very long, I have to suspect, given how nasty oxygen difluoride is already and how desperately those two extra fluorine atoms probably want to break free. At any rate, it doesn't have a CAS number and there's nothing here that suggests that there's any empirical validation of any property of the stuff, much less that anyone has any idea of how to synthesize it. Mangoe ( talk) 02:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep, just because the compound is hypothetical and almost impossible to exist doesn’t mean it should have its own article. Take radon hexafluoride for example. Brachy08 (Talk) 04:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
All the more reason to delete the latter. The article on hexafluorides doesn't mention a radon version, and neither should we. Mangoe ( talk) 04:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree: Delete. Athel cb ( talk) 08:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Inadequate coverage of something that doesn't exist. Reywas92 Talk 13:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Hypothetical compounds can certainly be notable, but this one hasn't been the subject of any systematic study that I can find. "Predictions" about donor-acceptor interactions are not systematic study, and one of the two papers cited for that claim never mentions the compound at all, only lists it in a table alongside a bunch of other oxygen-fluorine compounds they admit probably cannot exist. Database entries do not count toward notability, and this compound doesn't even have that: No CAS number, nothing in PubChem or Chemspider. The article cites an AP Chemistry study guide as a source, for crying out loud. Come on. I could draw a helium atom with nineteen vanadium atoms bonded to it; does that mean WP should have an article on "helium nonadecavanadide"? Delete. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 14:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Given that the OF article does no more than mention OF4, I think not. Mangoe ( talk) 03:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the list can be endless if we made a list of “possible” compounds
FuzzyMagma ( talk) 17:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Carr Cavender

Carr Cavender (  | talk | history | 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 actor, has only appeared in short films. Film festival award is non-notable. No sourcing found other than social media. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Has starred in multiple previously released feature films. More than enough RS are referenced in article including Newspapers.com. I believe WP:PRODUCER applies here with their involvement in To Hell and Gone. – Filmforme ( talk) 19:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Filmforme doesn't WP:PRODUCER require that someone's work be significant? To Hell and Gone was a barely notable movie, let alone significant. If I'm missing something, let me know.
    -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 19:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ A. B. You may know more about it, but it is widely distributed by Gravitas Ventures. A google search says it’s on 10+ major streamers and physical media. That with the RS coverage for the film, it’s significant enough for me. – Filmforme ( talk) 21:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Anyone? Bueller?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - I tried hard. He's got refs for wining some routine awards (student of the week) [56] [57] [58] in high school but, gosh, I just can't bring myself to say he's notable because of that. Post-school, there are interesting articles in small press sites that talk about movies he's making but they're more about them than him.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 06:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Jenny Preece (squash player)

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Searching under "Jennifer Preece" I only found coverage that confirms she competed in a few regional games. A relatively low world ranking of 176. LibStar ( talk) 01:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - More importantly, fails WP:GNG. There aren't multiple independent reliable sources about her to establish notability.
SoniaSotomayorFan ( talk) 19:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per both WP:SNOW and article's subject meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines.‎. SouthernNights ( talk) 11:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Arleen McCarty Hynes

Arleen McCarty Hynes (  | talk | history | 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 is written largely like an essay and not like an encyclopedic article. Additionally, article isn't written from an NPOV. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ ( talk / contribs) 01:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm surprised about this. I found her on Women in Red, and wrote the article like I have written all of my other articles. I would like a second opinion. A lot of research went into this. Fortunaa ( talk) 01:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I took out some phrases that could be interpreted as not neutral, but I'm still struggling with why it was categorized that way. I did not know about her before doing the research, I cited books, articles, newspaper obits, etc. There was even a dissertation on her. Fortunaa ( talk) 01:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Here's a second opinion - the above is just one editor's viewpoint, and we can fix this. I added some ISBN numbers to the books above. I'll look a little more, and check again tomorrow. Right off hand, nothing glares at me that makes this deletion fodder. By the way, do you know an easy way to list books and have ISBN fill in the rest? At the top of your edit window, and look at the drop-down "Templates". Click on it and go to cite book. Open that, and input the ISBN number, then click the little thing to the right that looks like a magnifying glass. It should then fill the template. Works on most ISBN numbers, and on some it doesn't. Sure is a time saver. — Maile ( talk) 03:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Fortunaa the Eugene McCarthy section is an example where I might have worded some of it differently. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with how you did it. Unless someone wants to change a word or two, I think that section is good like it is. — Maile ( talk) 04:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The issues the nom raises are not adequate reasons for deletion, even if you agree with them (and I don't think I do as it now is). Is she notable? It seems yes, and there are enough refs. Johnbod ( talk) 04:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep None of that is an argument for deletion? I would have expected a multi-year old editor like Urban Versis 32 to be aware of that and what AfD is for. Anyways, discussing an actual topic of deletion, ie notability, I see plenty of additional sources on her. For example:
So I really don't see the point of this AfD. Silver seren C 05:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep - not a deletion candidate. Arleen McCarty Hynes is clearly notable just by quickly skimming the article's refs.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep clearly notable, no reason to delete. Newklear007 ( talk) 07:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Mehdi Brando Mahdloo

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

Does not meet notability criteria for WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Arts Tribune appears to be a generic entertainment blog. The "Vasto Film Festival" and "Hombres Literary Award" also do not seem terribly notable. Other claims are unsourced and I cannot find verification. Google search for "Mehdi Brando Mahdloo" or "Mehdi Mahdloo" comes up with fewer than 100 results, mostly directory entries and social media. There's one bylined write-up in a localized news site. ... discospinster talk 01:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Eunises Núñez

Eunises Núñez (  | talk | history | 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 has made at least three appearances for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Jonnie Sánchez

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

Former college soccer player who earned at least two caps for the Nicaragua women's national football team as a teenager. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy Delete‎ as a copyright violation. Whpq ( talk) 12:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Teleperformance Albania

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

This is a stub mostly based on self-published promotional materials. Teleperformance Albania is a subsidiary of Teleperformance which already as its own article. Gnkgr ( talk) 00:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Albania. Hey man im josh ( talk) 00:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Delete non-notable part of the main business, no sourcing found in RS. What's given is primary or non-RS. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not in line with WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ADVERTISING. Teleperformance Albania started with an initial capacity of 100 workstations, and we grew exponentially by roughly doubling that number every six months. We? I have never seen an Wiki article saying "we" in wikivoice. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 00:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well, "we" should have read NPOV before creating an article about themselves. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No indication of notability and page is basically written like an advertisement . Kpg jhp jm 04:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Also notice that the page creator is a sockpuppet of a blocked account, and that User:Teleperformance Albania has contributed to this article. Suspicious. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 12:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. Tagging it for G11, G12 of the profile posted at "best places to work for", no need to spend 7 days on this. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 09:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. G11 completed by Jimfbleak (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 15:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Teleperformance Philippines

Teleperformance Philippines (  | talk | history | 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 article that was clearly authored by the company it talks about for promotional purposes. Teleperformance is noteworthy but already has its own article. No need to create a new one for its subsidiaries also. Gnkgr ( talk) 00:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete, clearly promotional, falls under G11. Fails WP:NPOV Brachy08 (Talk) 04:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails WP:NCORP and written in a highly promotional tone . Kpg jhp jm 04:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I also noticed that the person who created this is probs a member of Teleperformance Philippines. Brachy08 (Talk) 06:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete: Qualifies for G11 speedy as pure promo that would need to fully be rewritten. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete --- Tito Pao ( talk) 12:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete, should have qualified under G11 and G12 a long time ago (see relevant entry here). Teleperformance's operations plus CSR programs (if any) in the Philippines can be mentioned in the Teleperformance article. - Ian Lopez @ 14:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete: WP:G11. ThisIsSeanJ ( talk) 04:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Ugh. Strictly speaking we don't have a CSD for blatant UPE that's been stubified to have no content and I can't find anything that isn't more likely a backwards copy but I'm going to tag it for G11 and the user page draft as G7 and U5. Speedy delete, snow. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 13:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_July_28&oldid=1168795109"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE