Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 24 June 26 >

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 redirect‎ to Del Water Gap#Discography. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Del Water Gap (album)

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

Album article previously converted to redirect and recently restored. Does not seem to pass WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Mbdfar ( talk) 23:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Restore redirect per nomination and Richard3120's justification. Though, frankly, the artist doesn't look particularly notable apart from this, his only album so far, and both articles may be worth deleting. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 01:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment I believe the target subject passes WP:NBAND. The major contributor needs to understand that the article is not to be used as a public relations medium that is an extension of the subject's own social media/website. The major contributor appears to be his PR agent (based on editing pattern, and their discussion in talk page saying they have permission from photographer and such) Graywalls ( talk) 05:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Restore redirect as above. The contribution history of the editor Deer876 ( talk · contribs) is all/nearly 100% about Del Water Gap over a sufficiently long period of time to suggest self advocacy or editing for the subject or his record label. Graywalls ( talk) 04:17, 2 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! 23:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Mikhail Tsaturian

Mikhail Tsaturian (  | talk | history | 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 semi-promotional article on an artist does not meet criteria for notability per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. The sourcing is very weak, and most sources do not mention him at all or fail verification with the exception of one that mentions an NFT he made, and another which is a sponsored project he did for an alcoholic beverage company. A BEFORE search using his name as well as his pseudonym only reveals social media and user-submitted content. No evidence of important exhibitions at museums or national galleries, no museum collections. Possibly TOOSOON? Netherzone ( talk) 23:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete I agree entirely, the existing sourcing is poor and I can't find any better sources supporting notability. JaggedHamster ( talk) 15:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I just deleted this article on the Russian-language Wikipedia. I could not find weighty art awards and prizes, no quality independent reviews of his work, and no reviews of his creative path. -- Khinkali ( talk) 15:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article infobox contains a link to his site which is cited as a source for many claims in the article body. The site itself is offline (whois reports it as not being registered). Internet Archive does have a copy of the site from 2022, which gives an impression of a freelance designer who also occasionally displays his works at places without any curation, likely to promote his professional services. The the article mentions a few works, but none of them appears to have any third-party coverage at all. Anton.bersh ( talk) 10:37, 2 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 List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present). This incident is already listed on the target article but the listing is unsourced and this article can supply references. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 Syria helicopter accident

2023 Syria helicopter accident (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One small incident in a war; nothing to make it notable at all. (The article was proposed for deletion ( WP:PROD) and the creator of the article contested the proposal.) JBW ( talk) 22:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi Deeday-UK! How do you feel about going from 1 to 3 sentences on the accident here plus adding missing sources through a merge? The article would still disappear, as you suggest, while adding quality elsewhere. gidonb ( talk) 23:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Hi Grahaml35! Did you also consider WP:ATDs? gidonb ( talk) 13:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply
It has already been added to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present) and I believe the information on that article is sufficient. Therefore, I do not believe a WP:ATD is necessary. Grahaml35 ( talk) 13:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

WOH S279

WOH S279 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NASTRO, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV and entirely relies on large-scale surveys. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 19:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Article briefly PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, I guess. Seems a pity; would be nice to have somewhere to transwiki this sort of thing. -- Visviva ( talk) 23:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

WOH S281

WOH S281 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Definitely does not meet WP:NASTRO, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The article only relies on a single source (excluding its SIMBAD entry), that itself is a large-scale survey and does not establish notability. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 19:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Article briefly PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, I guess. Seems a pity, but as noted above there just isn't much to work with here. -- Visviva ( talk) 23:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 19:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Teals Crossroads, Alabama

Teals Crossroads, Alabama (  | talk | history | 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'm not seeing any coverage to establish notability for this intersection aside from being mentioned in various lists of places. – dlthewave ☎ 18:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • delete Aerials (and in this case U Alabama has extra coverage) show that a store appeared around 1963-'64; its vacant building is still there, and there might have been another business across the road (now gone). I can find nothing narrative about the place, and the only non-listing name drops I can find are WRT a tornado that passed through the area, causing no significant damage however, and a cemetery maybe half a mile north attached to a relatively new church. I have to think this was always just a crossroads. Mangoe ( talk) 00:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Barbour County, Alabama#Communities where it's listed as an unincorporated community and maybe add in its co-ordinates so it can be located on maps. There's inhabited property round abouts and a modern church, but it doesn't look like it fulfills the legally recognised populated place criterion of WP:GEOLAND. If it was on a State Route or US Highway and the crossroads widely referred to, it could have been a redirect to the relevant road, but here the roads are County Roads. Similar to Spring Hill, except that place has notable residents and a notable church. Doesn't seem to be anything of note here though, now or historically. Rupples ( talk) 20:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm not necessarily opposed to a redirect, but it will need to be removed from the "Communities" list unless we have a reliable source that describes it as such. I don't see any evidence that the surrounding homes are part of, or known as, Teals Crossroads. – dlthewave ☎ 22:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Changing from redirect as dlthewave rightly states lack of evidence for the surrounding houses/church use of the name. Rupples ( talk) 00:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 21:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Benchmark, South Dakota

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

GNIS spam. Although the name appears on topo maps, I could find no evidence of a community or notable place at this location. – dlthewave ☎ 17:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • delete This looks like a mistake at some point where someone converted the benchmark which is there into a place name. I can find no evidence at any era that there was anything else here. Mangoe ( talk) 01:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I like places, but this isn't much of a place. Google Earth shows there's not even a cross-roads or a house at this location; I wonder if there's a mistake in the coordinates. There are several dozen homes on dirt roads scattered over about a square mile 3/4 mile to the northwest.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 12:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see the consensus here as against Deletion of these articles but that editors are open to Redirection or Merger of some of these pages if the nominator or another editor would like to pursue those options. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Envy & Other Sins

Envy & Other Sins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Highness (song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We Leave at Dawn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs recorded by Envy & Other Sins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Band and associated articles do not appear to be notable. Couldn't find any coverage beyond the NME article sourced in the band's article. Only one single charted, but it was only in the bottom half of the chart for one week. Could merge/redirect what little is here to Orange unsignedAct, though the notability of that series is also questionable. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 17:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Albums and songs, and England. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 17:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Weak Keep WP:BAND#2 applies as WP:CHART is top 100 and they hit #65. Band#5 doesn't apply as they only had one major label album.
    I was almost at delete because I did a series of searches and can't find anything other than the NME article. It could be this content could be merged into one of the other band articles for Jim Macaulay the drummer, but only The Stranglers mentions him and he was a replacement drummer which means he's not really fundamental to their history. So this article is the place, and they squeak through with that charted single. Oblivy ( talk) 02:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Again, it appeared on a weekly chart for just one week, and not particularly high. Just because it placed on a chart at all doesn't necessarily mean it passes. And even then, that's one song that charted, not the album. It could be a keep for the song (though I still disagree with that) but that doesn't necessarily transfer to the album or band. Remember that notability is not inherited. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 03:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    I did not make a WP:Inherited argument. If an article satisfies a notability criterion, it satisfies it. There's no time-on-the-chart requirement in WP:BAND. Oblivy ( talk) 05:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
OK, looking again I see you've nominated everything relating to this band in one fell swoop. The single does apply to the band, per WP:BAND#2. The album, fair enough, although it's more an argument for merging the album article into the band's page than outright deletion. Oblivy ( talk) 05:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
About the album: Drowned in Sound Gigwise Yahoo! Music Belfast Telegraph NME
And about the single: DIY Digital Spy NME Stuff
I'll admit that none of the articles is in a particularly good state, and I was probably more than a little overzealous when I created the "Songs recorded by" list, so that one can probably be redirected. But, personally, I think these articles' problems are not insurmountable and that the band meets the WP:GNG. Thanks, A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 09:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the band article and merge or redirect the other articles to the band article. The Drowned in Sound review, Yorkshire Evening Post, Birmingham Mail, Belfast Telegraph and paragraph from The Guardian are enough for WP:GNG of the band in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 17:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Welco Corners, Illinois

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

Sourced only to GNIS, there's no evidence that Welco Corners was ever anything more than a highway junction. My BEFORE search returned nothing that described this as a community, much less an officially-recognized one, and sources primarily use it as a landmark ("The highway was repaved from Welco Corners to the county line") which isn't sufficient to establish notability. – dlthewave ☎ 17:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - Google Earth shows this as another intersection in an area of sprawl in Metro Chicago. The Interstate exit sign says "Joliet Road", not Welco Corners. Today, there's nothing distinctive about this location. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 11:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There is no sourcing for this article and there is no reason to believe this place is notable enough to warrant an article.-- Mpen320 ( talk) 04:08, 2 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! 17:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Red Rock, Yavapai County, Arizona

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

At its heart, this article is just another piece of GNIS spam. I couldn't find any coverage of a place called Red Rock aside from Red Rock State Park. "Red Rock Crossing" seems to be a simple road crossing of the river which is sourced only to a now-defunct special interest group which opposed a proposed bridge. – dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - This appears to be a populated place:
Most important, go to Google Maps, or any map, and you'll see a community of many houses there, and one of the roads in the community is Schuermans Drive. Magnolia677 ( talk) 18:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 01:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Chris Senn (video game designer)

Chris Senn (video game designer) (  | talk | history | 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:N, not independently notable, and no significant coverage from any reliable source OceanHok ( talk) 17:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I know his involvement with Sonic Xtreme is heavily documented in reliable sources in a general sense, but it would take reviewing to verify that the coverage is truly about him - much of it may be more in the context of the game rather than him. Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The current sources in the article are not suitable for establishing notability, and searches did not really turn up any coverage on Senn. There were some books and articles that have quotes from him, in regards to his work on Sonic Xtreme, but like Sergecross73 suggested, this kind of coverage is really on Sonic Xtreme, and not actual coverage about Senn, himself. I also took a quick look around for sources on his current company, Senntertain, and similarly did not find much coverage in reliable sources on it. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Keti Chomata

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 23:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply


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

Keti Chomata's article only has 5 sources, one of them is inaccessible, another one is a blog, another doesn't even mention her and the other two are from two different Greek newspapers, one of them being a celebrity gossip newspaper so not reliable. This leaves a sole article from Lifo newspaper, definitely not enough to establish notability. Fails WP:NBASIC and all 12 criteria for WP:SINGER. No relevant newspapers articles and google results can be found online either. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 15:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. You simply have to search in Greek (or whichever minor, in e.g. number of speakers, modern language you deal with) to find relevant stuff, it's as simple as that. So unless the real criterion is either Anglophones know about it or it doesn't exist, please refrain from such hasty proposals.
PS. I'm adding more and/or fixing refs now.
Thanatos| talk| contributions 19:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The subject might be more known in Greece but this is the English Wikipedia and it must be relevant to the Anglophone speakers which is definitely not the case. Furthermore after looking through the Greek results, Keti Chomata only has a couple of articles about her and most of them are quite short, just having 2 or 3 paragraphs or a video, the rest of the articles results are just mere passages of her name, the same applies to the books, just passages of her name and definitely not enough to establish notability. SpaceEconomist192 ✐
    @ SpaceEconomist192: this is the English Wikipedia and it must be relevant to the Anglophone speakers ← That is absolutely not how it works. All we care is that something is significant according to reliable sources—not that those reliable sources are in English. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 23:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I didn't say it needs English sources, I'm aware of WP:NOENG. I already refuted the premise that the subject had reliable sources in Greek. SpaceEconomist192 ✐

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as well as the Lifo article the first three references in the Greek wikipedia article here show significant coverage directly about her. It also states that she had a number of hit singles from her 18 released albums. There is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Regents' and Chancellor's Scholarship

Regents' and Chancellor's Scholarship (  | talk | history | 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 is not notable ElKevbo ( talk) 14:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Doesn't really seem to be a coherent topic; sources, such as they are, talk about one or the other but not both together. It's possible that the Regent's Scholarship by itself could be a notable topic, but I'm not seeing much evidence of it. If there is anything of encyclopedic significance to be covered about that scholarship, it could probably be addressed in the Regents of the University of California article. -- Visviva ( talk) 00:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 17:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Yuri Agapov

Yuri Agapov (  | talk | history | 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 and WP:SPORTCRIT. Only sourced to databases. Non database coverage is only this routine namecheck that has one sentence about him and player roster listing. Kges1901 ( talk) 15:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Kges1901 ( talk) 15:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Agapov had two useful seasons in the Russian second division with FC Fakel and one good season in Kazakhstan with FC Shakhter, but I couldn't find any in-depth coverage (the sports.kz article linked above and a sovsport.ru article make very brief mentions, and there are several match reports with even less coverage). Jogurney ( talk) 14:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Regardless of whether it's a hoax or not, we're lacking in reliable source coverage. Star Mississippi 17:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Talkan and Curcan massacres

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

Sourcing and tone leave a lot to be desired. A few of the sources seem to be unreliable fringe publications, others are inaccessible. With an alleged death toll of over 100k, I'm finding it hard to pull up any reliable academic sourcing that would even establish the existence of the massacres. Mooonswimmer 15:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete. I couldn’t find any reliable source in google books or any recognizable academic institution or publisher showing anything as “Talkan and Curcan massacres”. Almost all the cited sources are inaccessible, unreliable or unrecognizable sources, quotes like quoting al-hajaj saying “he is an enemy to muslims, kill him without any mercy” can’t be found in any accessible reliable source or anywhere in general, it seems that the page is made for nationalistic and/or propagandistic purpose and have nothing to do with history and meets wp:HOAX criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chafique ( talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Islam, and Central Asia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for lack of sourcing, appears OR, or HOAX. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • It's not a hoax. The place is Taloqan (also spelled Talaqan). You can read al-Tabari's account here. These events took on great significance in Kemalist historiography, so I'm sure there some unreliable stuff out there. However, it is not a hoax. Srnec ( talk) 20:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    First of all, al-Tabari isn’t a reliable source per WP:RS. Second of all it’s not al-Tabari reporting here, he is mentioning a report by an anonymous source (note also that the word “massacre” is never used and there is no mention for Curcan). Finally there is no single academic or any reliable historical secondary source mentioning anything about a such massacre or incident, whether some kemalist politicians or propaganda promote hoax or not for political reasons it’s not relevant here. Chafique ( talk) 22:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    The footnote in al-Tabari refers to Gibb, which is freely available online. For a brief survey of the contradictory traditions mentioned by Gibb, see Andrew Marsham, "Public Execution in the Umayyad Period: Early Islamic Punitive Practice and its Late Antique Context," Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 11 (2011): 101–136, at 131 (also available freely online). It isn't a hoax and that is not a valid grounds for deletion. For a Kemalist textbook treatment, see Başar Ari, "Religion and Nation-building in the Turkish Republic: Comparison of High School History Textbooks of 1931–41 and of 1942–50," Turkish Studies 14.2 (2013): 372–393 (quoted at 380). Srnec ( talk) 01:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    The footnote in al-Tabari refers to Gibb. again, you are missing the main point, Al-Tabari himself is not a reliable source and a wikipedia article can’t be established based on his writings per WP:RS. You need a reliable secondary source to establish the topic’s notability and prove it’s existence (check WP:PST).
    just a side question relatively unrelated to the discussion, can you tell us who is Gibb ?
    For a Kemalist textbook treatment, see Başar Ari, "Religion and Nation-building in the Turkish Republic: Comparison of High School History Textbooks of 1931–41 and of 1942–50," Now regarding kemalist political propagada textbooks, they are not reliable sources neither, they are heavily criticized by A LOT of academic and reliable sources for genocide denial and promoting propaganda and poor to no reputation for facts checking facts or with editorial oversight, there is an entire wikipedia article with tons of sources called Turkish textbook controversies, they are not reliable sources per WP:QUESTIONED. Aside from that, can you send us the quote from that source where the author (himself) says “talqan massacre” or “talqan people were massacred” or mention anything about curcan ?, because I can’t find it.
    "Public Execution in the Umayyad Period: Early Islamic Punitive Practice and its Late Antique Context," Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 11 (2011): 101–136, at 131 (also available freely online). no mention for a massacre nor for anything about curcan. Chafique ( talk) 18:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 see a consensus to Delete these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 16:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Germanic-speaking world

Germanic-speaking world (  | talk | history | 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 am also nominating the following related pages because of the same problems:

Romance-speaking world (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Romance-speaking Africa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iberophone (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Finno-Ugric countries (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Sections are largely WP:COATRACKs of tangentially related stuff and WP:UNSOURCED or WP:SYNTHed (e.g. Germanic-speaking world randomly combines bits and pieces of Germania/ Germanic peoples history, then an WP:UNSOURCED list of speakers of Germanic languages, then another WP:UNSOURCED table, and then two WP:SYNTHed tables about two Germanic languages in particular).

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries, which deleted

following a very, very long series of precedents which established that language family is WP:NONDEFINING for countries.

Indirectly, this AfD is linked to:

  1. Comparison of the Baltic states has been deleted.
  2. Comparison of the Benelux countries has been deleted.
  3. Comparison of the Nordic countries has been deleted.

It's also worth noting that List of Austronesian regions was found to be "OR nonsense", and redirected. Germanic-speaking Europe already redirects to Languages of Europe#Germanic, and Romance-speaking Europe to Languages of Europe#Romance. So redirecting rather than fully deleting is perhaps also an option. But it is not my preference, because those articles usually have their own problems with sourcing, OR/SYNTH and whatnot. Before deciding we should redirect/merge articles, we should make sure we aren't just moving the problems to somewhere else without actually solving them. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 10:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, while there might be language topics that merit articles, creating articles from broad groups like "Germanic" or "Romance" is, as mentioned, trivia or OR. Iberophone could be deleted or redirected to the actual topic of Organization of Ibero-American States. Finno-Urgic countries seems a plausible search, so I would redirect that to Finno-Ugric languages. CMD ( talk) 12:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree with the reasoning given. We've seen over and over that people making these articles are either adding nothing to the articles we have about language families, or else what they are are adding are implied racial folk-theories. (The classic discussions we always have about how Afrikaners should be included, but not Jamaicans or Irish.) I think it is easier to source ways of dividing up Europe based on which alcoholic drinks they drink, or whether they cook with butter or olive oil, and I don't think we have articles on those. Language families are certainly discussed in Wikipedia as language families, but not as types of people. Correlations between languages and ancestry or cultures are for careful discussion within articles (if there are good sources) and not just things our editors may assume to be "obvious" without sources. -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Couldn't have said it better myself. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 16:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Iberophone and delete the rest. Unlike the other nominated articles, Iberophone is referenced to sources that deal with the concept, http://isdiber.org/paniberismo-e-iberofonia-2/ and https://escholarship.org/uc/ssha_transmodernity and https://oei.int/ rather than to sources that deal with a specific language rather than a language family. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 23:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    When you boil it down to the essentials, Iberophone doesn't really amount to much. The article does not advance much further than a dictionary definition ( WP:NOTDICT) plus some WP:UNSOURCED or WP:SYNTHed "country comparison" data dumps, which are currently being considered for total deletion/removal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables. It's either a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Iberian Romance languages (=language sub-family, a branch of the Romance languages family), or just + Hispanophone + Lusophone. There is nothing more to add beyond 'Hey, did you know that Spanish and Portuguese are closely-related Romance languages that originated next to each other in the Iberian Peninsula, and also sit next to each other in South America? There's even a neologism for it: Iberophone. What great fun!' That's all there is to it, really. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 09:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Besides, the http://isdiber.org/paniberismo-e-iberofonia-2/ is very telling: it advances a certain political agenda by advocating for a geopolitical approach called pan-Iberism. It mixes supposed facts ("this reality") and opinions ("this proposal"): [There is a] substantial affinity between the two main Iberian languages (...). This reality means that, in geopolitical, geolinguistic and cultural terms, it is possible to speak of a large multinational space of Iberian-speaking countries that covers all the continents and is made up of more than thirty countries and more than 700 million people. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that we have been needing to delete and remove in recent years/months, in which language families and countries were mixed up to produce lots of WP:CROSSCAT generalisations and oversimplified framings of countries and territories (and their populations) in terms of the language family to which the native languages - which the majority of their inhabitants speak - belong. That's just a plainly WP:TRIVIAL, WP:NONDEFINING fact (which has no bearing on any native speaker's career per WP:OCEGRS, as precedents have repeatedly confirmed). And Wikipedia shouldn't play along with anyone trying to advocate for a certain political agenda based on - encyclopedically speaking - WP:TRIVIAL, WP:NONDEFINING facts. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 10:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on Iberophone?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete all as original research. The other four are transparent synthesis and I'm convinced by Nederlandse Leeuw's analysis of Iberophone. –  Joe ( talk) 15:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per nom; unacceptable combinations of OR and synthesis. Iseult Δx parlez moi 15:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Raja Rani 2 (Tamil TV series)

Raja Rani 2 (Tamil TV series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

  • Source 1 is a routine update on the serial's ending
  • Source 2 is a routine update on the serial's ending
  • Source 3 is a routine promotional update on the serial's starting, and is mainly Instagram posts with cast views
  • Source 4 is on the cast getting a tattoo
  • Source 5 is tabloid news with pictures of the shooting spot
  • Source 6 is a routine entertainment promo that describes an Instagram post
  • Source 7 is an interview with a cast member Karnataka ( talk) 10:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and Tamil Nadu. Karnataka ( talk) 10:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep:more value source added, WP:GNG have added references from News18 India [10], www.medianews4u.com [11], The Times of India [12]. sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources.-- P.Karthik.95 ( talk) 10:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    I still don't think these sources explain the notability of the topic:
    • Link 5 is routine updates on the casting (news18)
    • I'm not sure about Link 6's reliability as a website. however regardless it seems to be a routine entertainment news that states generic information about the source available everywhere else (mn4u)
    • Link 7 is a routine update on an actress leaving the serial (ToI, which is unreliable anyways.)
    Karnataka ( talk) 14:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Abhilash Shetty

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

NN filmmaker UtherSRG (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep the Article. Article have the major references & enough coverage from the media. Trident 1289 ( talk) 07:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC) — Trident 1289 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete No significant coverage except a movie Koli Taal, Which is also not much notable. PARVAGE talk! 05:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Koli Taal is a notable film in India. It got screened at various international film festivals too. I see you are from Bangladesh so probably you are not aware of this. Please check the film.  Trident 1289 ( talk) 08:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Koli Taal has got 131 reviews in IMDB, 1 review in Rotten Tomatoes. And it hasn't received any notable awards. Especially, not matter what the movie is but Shetty hasn't done any notable things at all. PARVAGE talk! 10:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep There are more than six full-length articles already cited that meet notability of this person. There is enough coverage from the leading newspapers, magazines of India. And the person has more than five credits on IMDb with 3 wins & 19 nominations at the Awards central. Trident 1289 ( talk) 11:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC) — Trident 1289 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 14:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Vanakkam Tamizha

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan ( talk) 20:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Modussiccandi ( talk) 19:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

List of women killed fighting for human rights

List of women killed fighting for human rights (  | talk | history | 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 criteria for this list is not clear, and "fighting for human rights" is a very vague motive. There's also no good reason to limit it to women. Songwaters ( talk) 14:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The reason to delete is not policy based. We make lists based on how reliable sources group things and the first citation shows that grouping people killed for human rights, are grouped as women.
The "no reason to limit to..." concept could be applied to any list. Why limit it to just those killed? Why limit it to only ones killed for human rights? The answer is always because WP:NLIST handles them in this collective way. CT55555( talk) 01:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Besides failing WP:NLIST (more on that in a second), the inclusion criterion is hopelessly vague -- killed fighting for human rights? Even "human rights" is a slippery term without a widely agreed upon definition, let alone the difficulty of trying to determine if someone was killed fighting for them. As expected, this article is just going to have unfixable WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH issues. Take for example the case of Shifa Gardi. She appears in the Guardian's list referenced in the list's lead with the following text:

    "Shifa Gardi was a reporter for the Kurdish channel Rudaw. She had been credited for breaking the “stereotypes of male-dominated journalism”. She was killed by a roadside bomb while covering the battle for Mosul on 25 February."

    How is being a wartime reporter fighting for human rights? Including her on this list for that reason is a stretch and a half; indeed even the articles listed as refs by her entry in the list (one BBC, another in Arabic, so I had to use a machine translation) say nothing about "human rights".
    But wait, I hear you say, we have reliable sources that discuss this topic as a set. Just look at the references in the lead! Okay, the first one, from The Guardian is "supported" content -- supported by "Count Me In!", a consortium of groups with a clear agenda. That's not really a value judgement, but it does count against the independence of the source for demonstrating notability. Not to mention that the Gardi example I mentioned above calls into question the reliability of this article due to it's unclear inclusion criteria. The other source is from AWID, an activist organization. This again, disqualifies it from establishing notability on independence (and probably reliability for that matter) grounds. Not only that, but it's simply a memorial list of women activists, regardless of how they died.
    That was a long !vote, but this one deserved a closer look. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 04:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    You are correct to note that Count Me In! support the content, but if you click through, it says "The site is editorially independent of any external support, and the Guardian is solely responsible for all journalistic output."
    Other sources that deal with the killing of women human rights defenders:
    1. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/mar/02/more-human-rights-defenders-murdered-2021-environmental-indigenous-rights-activists (not the primary subject, but discussed in 2 paragraphs)
    2. La Lucha (2015 book) Preface speaks about women human rights defenders who were killed, giving examples.
    3. Protecting Human Rights Defenders at Risk, 2020 book: Page 108
    CT55555( talk) 00:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Your first source is about all people and not about women specifically. And as you argued above, "... and the first citation [in the article] shows that grouping people killed for human rights, are grouped as women." You can't have it both ways. The third source similarly seems to be discussing all people, whereas the page number you mention is talking about one specific incident. The second source doesn't seem to be discussing women specifically at all...you're just throwing words into a search box and parading around any hits you get as some sort of magical potion to justify a list, but it doesn't work like that. The very sources you bring up are, if anything, evidence against this particular list. And really, at best, what you're doing here is starting to show notability of the overall topic of "violence against human rights activists" or something along those lines (which might even exist already...I haven't looked). But just because we might have an article about that doesn't mean that we should create a list of every incident. Lists like this are beyond problematic due to the unfixable OR/SYNTH issues that I mentioned above. They also smack of WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:RGW to a lesser extent. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 20:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    The first link is about all genders, but then groups by gender and talks about women: "A larger proportion of murdered defenders were women and transgender women, 18% of the total killed compared with 13% in 2020. We’ve seen the horrific killing of women human rights defenders in Afghanistan, including Frozan Safi..."
    The second one groups the defender as women in the preface.
    The third one groups four women on the page cited.
    I am not "just throwing words into a search box" nor am I "parading" anything. I'm doing the normal thing to justify keeping a list, showing you examples if reliable sources grouping the subject of the list.
    If you don't find that persuasive, that's OK. Please do assume good faith.
    I think a careful reading of the WP:NOTMEMORIAL will make it clear why this does not refute my point or support deletion, I don't think there is any credible claim that anyone is writing about "deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances..."
    Let's agree to disagree and leave more space for others. I've made my point, I don't wish to bludgeon. CT55555( talk) 16:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. "Human rights" is too broad (and vague) per WP:SALAT. (Also, Emily Davison did herself in.) Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I originally thought I'd find myself in favor of keeping this, but it's absolutely just way too broad and too vague. This one fails the WP:NLIST requirements, so it should be deleted from Wiki. Some content might be able to merge to other articles, but having a dedicated list isn't feasible here. Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. At risk of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, to the editors who think that "human rights" is a vague term, it does seem to work fine for List of human rights organisations and we seem to be able to deal with the topic without trouble at Human Rights. We manage to categorise XCategory:Human rights by country, XCategory:Human rights abuses and dozens of others. So what's the problem exactly? CT55555( talk) 16:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete “human rights” is well defined, more or less. “Fighting for” human rights is not, making this WP:SYNTH. This might as well be retitled “ list of women who I think should be considered martyrs” Dronebogus ( talk) 00:45, 3 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 14:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Thalattu (TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

  • Source 1 is routine entertainment coverage on serial starting and summarises the promo
  • Source 2 is routine entertainment coverage on serial starting and summarises the promo
  • Source 3 is routine entertainment coverage on serial starting and is entirely based on Instagram posts supporting the serial
  • Source 1 is routine entertainment coverage on serial starting and summarises the promo Karnataka ( talk) 22:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Karnataka ( talk) 22:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - seems to have noteworthy coverage in both English ( [13], [14], [15], [16]) and Tamil, judging by the corresponding Tamil article. - Knightoftheswords281 ( Talk · Contribs) 23:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ponni (TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan ( talk) 22:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep or Soft Delete: there’s a source from The Times of India [17] and News18 India [18]. There may be important updates in the future because the show is still airing.-- P.Karthik.95 ( talk) 09:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Both these sources listed (source 1 and 3) are just routine coverage of the show, they both contain the exact same content with the layout:
    • Introduction, which includes a list of actors
    • Plot summary
    • Interview from the protagonist
    • List of other serials going to premiere
    Source 2 is just a Tamil version of source 1, source 4 is a self-published source, and its expertise is unknown, and and source 5 does not mention Ponni at all. I cannot see how this is notable at this moment. Karnataka ( talk) 14:55, 10 June 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, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Pandavar Illam

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan ( talk) 22:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Longest running Tamil serial, WP:GNG have added references from The Times of India [19]. and Sun TV Website [20] and more Episode coverage in Tamil language. [21], [22].-- P.Karthik.95 ( talk) 10:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Source 1 aka the Times of India source on this reply is routine promotional coverage on the serial hitting a certain milestone and quotes from the actors
    • Source 2 is routine coverage on the promotional video and repeatedly states that something detail about the serial is unknown
    • Source 3 is a self published source, and its expertise is currently unknown. The entire body of this source is "Serial story coming soon..." with a list of actors
    • Source 4 is also a self published source, and its expertise is currently unknown. It just lists the serial cast (taking from this archive because the source isn't loading for me)
    • Source 5 is routine coverage about the cast receiving their COVID-19 vaccination
    This reply links to the show's page on Sun TV (the channel airing the serial which is not independent), which is not a source and none of this proves how this serial is notable for Wikipedia. Karnataka ( talk) 15:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Mohamad Jaamour

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

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. is what WP:SPORTBASIC tells us is a requirement for any footballer to have their own article. I've revived the Syrian Soccer article but it's only a trivial squad list mention. Kooora merely lists his goals in the Syria Youth League and is only a database source. I found some Arabic coverage on Facebook but that's not a WP:RS. The only other source that I found was ZAMANALWSL, which is another trivial mention. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 OpenAI. ✗ plicit 14:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Triton (programming language)

Triton (programming language) (  | talk | history | 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 significant coverage in reliable sources, better to redirect to OpenAI, or merge if it's worth mentioning Artem.G ( talk) 11:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Omar Al Hamwi

Omar Al Hamwi (  | talk | history | 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 has been tagged for multiple issues for many years and I cannot find evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The Psyrianp source has a quote from him and, other than that, just confirms his age, position and former club. On its own, this won't be sufficient, especially since quotes directly from the player are not considered to be WP:SIGCOV at AfD, by consensus. Aside from that, I found Al Rai, which is only a trivial mention. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 08:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Nicholas Griffin (philosopher)

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

Not notable. Seems promotional Very Average Editor ( talk) 07:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)) reply

Delete As nominator. Also worth noting, most of the contributors are a sock master and his socks. Very Average Editor ( talk)07:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 16:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Danial Zakaria

Danial Zakaria (  | talk | history | 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 NCREATIVE. Non-notable creative professional with no significant coverage. I also cannot find coverage of the subject’s creative works. Fancy Refrigerator ( talk) 10:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. I took a look myself and I'm not seeing anything that would suggest they meet NCREATIVE either. I also couldn't find any detailed secondary coverage of their films. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus here is to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

FountainVest Partners

FountainVest Partners (  | talk | history | 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:NCORP. Refs are routine business news. scope_creep Talk 05:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep this one from the SCMP is a portrait of FountainInvest. The sources are independent such as Reuters, the company has majority stakes in household names such as Wilson(Basketballs), Atomic (Skiing), Salomon. It has acquired (together with others) majority stakes in two of the best known ski manufacturers in the world and that's just one of their investment. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 06:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
No, not really. And they are not household names. What it looks like is a brochure advertising article similar to the ones created by Tim Templeton. scope_creep Talk 10:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Could you show me one of Tim Templeton to compare? I tried to find him over UserːTim Templeton, but he doesn't exist. And if you ever went Skiing or have played or watched Basketball or Tennis, you'd be rather familiar with those names. The outdoor clothes ( Arc'terix) they also partly own are really popular as well. Have you ever gone past a Papa John's Pizza restaurant? In China its theirs as well. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 11:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
He was blocked and most of his stuff has been deleted. But the type of article that being created are identical to the type of stuff he used to create. What they own is not a definition of notability. scope_creep Talk 13:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Paradise Chronicle. He's referring to User:Timtempleton. I think I now get why I have multiple articles flagged. One that user's latest drafts was on Stone Point Capital which I have tried working on today so he may think I am that guy. Maybe I should stop thinking of even trying to recreate articles of drafts that were previously deleted since I have gotten into bigger messes doing so. - Imcdc Contact 16:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Ref 1 [34] Profile. WP:PRIMARY.
  • Ref 2 [35] Company report. Non-RS.
  • Ref 3 [36] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 4 [37] Interview with the founder. Fails WP:ORGIND
  • Ref 5 [38] Taken from Tang speaking at a conference. Fails WP:ORGIND
  • Ref 6 [39] Press-releasse. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 7 [40] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 8 [41] Interview. Fails WP:ORGIND
  • Ref 9 [42] Comes from a press-release. Same news in multiple locations. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 10 [43] Monied raised. Fail WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Ref 11 [sdcera.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=328&meta_id=36781] PDF. FountainVest Introduction, SDCERA Board Meeting. Fails WP:SIRS. Not independent.
  • Ref 12 [44] Press-release. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 13 [45] Company deal. Not idependent. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 14 Same press-release as ref 13

There is not a single genuine source that confirms that the comany is notable. It fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. All the coverage is generated from company news sources, the founder and the a conference, as with any other small private company. scope_creep Talk 19:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Small private company? FountainVest was involved in the largest company buyout in Chinese history and co-owns three to four major and very well known sports companies that also have their own article. I believe you can watch any World Cup Skiing race and you will see their skis in the very vast majority of events if not all. They have Salomon AND Atomic. The current champion of the Ski World Cup Marco Odermatt uses Salomon shoes. And you can walk into any better sports wear store and you'll see their Arc'terix clothes. At least where I live, you see them all over and it is the well established class who wear such clothes.
And then you can watch any professional tennis tournament and you will see their rackets.
On the sources, of which you withhold their names... .we have
Wall Street Journal, on the establishment of its first fund of ca. 1 Bio.
Reuters (FountainVest declined to comment),
Reuters, (you call it interview, I call it notability, why does the founder get interviewed?),
South China Morning Post on the largest company buyout in Chinese history, which was Focus Media
FinanceAsia (no interview),
Bloomberg News (Paywall, but Bloomberg News) on the purchase of Papa John's China branch ( Non-paywall link)
South China Morning Post On the eventual IPO of the sports companies Arc'Terix Atomic, Wilson etc.
Thats just some, in the references are more. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 01:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm not so sure about this analysis. Ref 3 (the Reuters piece) says "FountainVest declined to comment" – you're saying they declined to comment in their own press release? — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 03:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply
A lot of that seems to be branding and advertising. How does that make the company notable, exactly? Companies advertise their products, that is what they do, to make profit. Society, modern civilization is soaked in advertisement and its never been cheaper in history to advertise on a global scale. Its very easy and cheap to do. I can't see how that is a criteria for being notable. When you look at these references, for example, taking the Bloomberg "FountainVest to Buy Papa John’s Pizza China Franchisee From EQT" It states in the headline "FountainVest to Buy Papa John’s Pizza China Franchisee From EQT". When you do a search on that term, it comes up in multiple locations, with the exact same text, indicating its a press-release from the company. Press-releases are the lingua franca of company's. So its not unique, some journalists doing the hard of going out and find the facts. Social media did for them in their business in big way from 2008 onwards, although paywalls are enabling real journalism to take place now, but not for this lazy way of reporting. On the WSJ one it is a similar outcome. Its a press-release. The WSJ that has been comprehensively debunked for showing it takes advertising dollar as much as anybody else. And it the same with all the rest. They are poor. Lastly, notability is not inherited. I may have made a mistake on size, for which I apologize for (I'll score it out), but there is nothing of real quality in the sources here. They're mostly generic second-hand information from the company news desk. scope_creep Talk 07:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Many of the sources are authored articles from perennial reliable sources not random press releases like from Reuters Staff or from the company itself. Then per the Establishing Notability linked by Imcdc below, FountainVest has way larger funds than 750 Million Dollars and closed its first around 1 Bio, and its fourth in 2022 at 2.9 Bio Dollars. It also holds by far more assets than the 1 Bio mentioned there. Besdie the aformentioned assests, it invested in 2009 in Sino, that launched Weibo the same year and which in 2017 overtook Twitter in market capitalization and by now is worth about 25 Bio. Dollars. FountainVests founder is Member of the Board at Weibo. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 10:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply
No they are not. The amount of money that organisation has hasn't been a criteria for notability since at least 2008. Your completly ignoring the type of references. Per WP:SIRS, they must be independent from the company. It is another debunked argument, that for example, if it comes from Reuters then its cast in platinum reliable. It is not and hasn't been for a long time. The quality of the references matter, where the information is coming from, whether or not its independent. If its coming from the company, then its not independent. A simple search shows the same. The same headlines appear in multiple locations, on multiple news sites, with the same wording, indicating its comes from the company and is not independent, failing WP:SIRS. scope_creep Talk 11:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply
How are they not authored.
The Wall Street Journal is authored, by Nisha Gopalan and Ellen Sheng
The Wall Street Journal again by John Stoll on the purchase of the Auo Industry supplier Key Safety Systems
The first Reuters in authored by Kane Wu
The second an interview by George Chen
The Bllomberg news on the Papa Johns China branch purchase by Vinicy Chan und Cathy Chan
The Finacial Times on the largest buy out in Chinese history by Josh Noble
Variety by Patrick Fraser in 2022
The Hollywood Reporter by Rebecca Sun in 2016
The New York Times by Neil Gough on the Sale of Focus Media for 7.4 Bio.
On that next one I am not sure if they are a perennial reliable source. But the Financial Review and three authors seems a fairly researched.
The Australien Finance Review on a purchase and eventual IPO of the Australian Loscam has even three authors, Anthony Macdonald, Sarah Thompson and Kanika Sood.
Every each one is written by authors of agency, outlet known to be independent to FVP. If FVP bought shares of any of those it can be mentioned in Perennial sources as it is done in the case the South China Morning Post which is owned by Alibaba Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 16:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply
It seems you have not responded to my point about ref 3, which does not seem to be a press release as far as I can tell. I've also checked the second ref you labeled as a press release (ref 6) and cannot find any evidence that it's a press release either. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 02:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Here are three of the sources discussed by Paradise Chronicle that establish notability:
    1. Wu, Kane (2020-12-17). Feast, Lincoln (ed.). "China's FountainVest reaches first-close in new private equity fund - source". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2023-07-02.

      The article notes: "Founded in 2007, FountainVest has been an avid investor in China’s media and entertainment, sports and consumer-related sectors. In June, it led a $750 million fundraising of online tutoring startup Zuoyebang as the COVID-19 crisis spurs investor interest in education technology. In 2018, the firm teamed up with China’s ANTA Sports and internet giant Tencent Holdings to buy Finland’s Amer Sports, which owns a range of sports brands including Wilson and Arc’teryx, for $5.2 billion."

    2. Rovnick, Naomi (2011-06-11). "Picking China's next winners". South China Morning Post. EBSCOhost  875105615. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2023-07-02.

      The article notes: "Frank Tang, chief executive of FountainVest Partners, a US$1 billion Hong Kong-based private equity fund, has bet the farm on China making its long-heralded transformation from the world's workshop into a consumer-driven economy. Tang founded FountainVest Partners in 2007 with a group of former colleagues at Singapore's sovereign-wealth fund Temasek Holdings, which was an anchor shareholder. Today, FountainVest Partners holds stakes in nine mainland companies, most of which Tang believes will profit from Beijing's plan to retool the economy."

    3. Gopalan, Nisha; Sheng, Ellen (2008-11-14). "FountainVest launches China fund". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2023-07-02.

      The article notes: "FountainVest Partners raised around $950 million for its first fund, a China-focused private-equity fund, despite the turmoil in financial markets. In addition to Singapore's state-owned investment company, Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd., FountainVest's backers include the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan and other investors from Asia, Europe and North America."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow FountainVest Partners ( traditional Chinese: 方源資本; simplified Chinese: 方源资本) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 05:17, 2 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! 06:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Verition Fund Management

Verition Fund Management (  | talk | history | 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:NCORP. References are routine business news. scope_creep Talk 05:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Ref 1: [46] Signs office lease. WP:PRIMARY Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent.
  • Ref 2 Form ADV" (PDF). SEC. Company docs. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 3 Moves its office. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent. Routine coverage.
  • Ref 4 [47] Press-release as its in multiple locations. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 5 [48] Hiring news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH routine coverage.
  • Ref 6 [49] WSJ article. About the last company. Not in-depth. Single paragraph. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 7 [50] Opening a new office. Fails [[WP:SIRS] Routine news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  • Ref 8 [51] hiring news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

These are the most routine news I've seen in a long time for supposed references. Hiring news, new offices, previous company and company docs. Not a single WP:SECONDARY sources that satisfies WP:NCORP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 20:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Let'srun ( talk) 23:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Cornish artists, architects and craftspeople

List of Cornish artists, architects and craftspeople (  | talk | history | 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:NLIST. Also, architects? Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Also List of Cornish philanthropists and List of Cornish geologists and explorers are sparsely populated. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete because categories exist and this is a glorified category. Dronebogus ( talk) 18:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Also, architects are indeed artists, who are responsible for designing buildings. Builders and engineers actually construct them and deal with practical stuff. Dronebogus ( talk) 18:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • That's your personal interpretation. Few people would consider architects to be artists (except for the Frank Lloyd Wrights of this world), so there are no lists with such an unusual agglomeration. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I know I'll get flak for this but this article has existed for 14 years, I'd like to see more policy-based reasons and support for deletion before hitting the Delete button.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Cornwall nowadays is just a region at the southwest corner of England. Briefly skim our constitutional status of Cornwall article for an overview why administratively it's been just another part of England for centuries and how the Cornish language faded from common usage in the 18th century. Attempts to gain autonomy for Cornwall like Scotland or Wales have fizzled due to lack of local support.
We don't have lists like this for other regions or counties of England and there's no reason to believe a Cornish geologist, philanthropist or architect is going to be different from their other English counterparts. The list serves no purpose.
In short, this list fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:CROSSCAT. In other words, Wikipedia is not "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". (Technically, this is a list, not a category but the notability discussion at WP:LISTN references WP:CROSSCAT and suggests the same rationale for deleting similar lists.)
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 04:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Athang

Athang (  | talk | history | 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, with one source being from IMDb (considered unreliable) and the other a blog. A draftification was contested. There are a few sources online, and I am personally unsure about whether or not the sources meet SIGCOV. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 05:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:59, 18 June 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! 04:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. If this were a film it'd only need "2 reviews" to pass ( WP:NFILM), but since it is a web show it will need 3 WP:GNG sources. I read the 4 sources mentioned in this AFD. The first source looks good, I think that passes GNG. The other 3 sources aren't great. 2 and 3 contain a lot of quotes so probably aren't independent. 4 is a bit too positive, could be based on a press release, so not independent. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 16:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Galen Tipton

Galen Tipton (  | talk | history | 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 musician. Sourcing is a list of performances and a biographical article. Gsearch only goes straight to streaming media sites. Has not had any charted singles or won major awards. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

" On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source." I believe the Pitchfork Review covers this. I can add more sources Carolina Heart ( talk) 04:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I have just found another citation from Tiny Mix Tapes which is another reputable music publication Carolina Heart ( talk) 04:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Found another from Alternative Press Carolina Heart ( talk) 04:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Found another citation from Mixmag Carolina Heart ( talk) 00:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Found another citation from Paper Magazine and inclusion in a list from The Guardian Carolina Heart ( talk) 01:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep I believe I've provided enough sources from established publications to pass notability. Majority of publication sources are notable enough that they have their own pages of decent length Carolina Heart ( talk) 16:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Pitchfork, Alt Press and other sources seem enough to establish notability. Rab V ( talk) 15:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the sources presented above…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:59, 18 June 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! 04:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Using WP:RSMUSIC to narrow to reliable sources, and excluding all interviews to keep independence there seem to be at least 2 sources the above discussion helped unearth for WP:GNG:
    • Tiny Mix Tapes [56] [57] [58] [59] - independent, reliable, sigcov (multiple reviews from multiple authors, some discussing artist's style in depth, and work in depth)
    • Pitchfork [60] - independent, reliable, sigcov (discusses subject beyond work, and work in depth)
I stopped after finding 2, there may be more. There are also several interviews that are not independent but are otherwise reliable/sigcov
— siro χ o 05:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: Sources are available to pass WP:Sigcov. Maliner ( talk) 06:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to create a Redirect to an appropriate article (no target page mentioned here). Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Wenche-Lin Hess

Wenche-Lin Hess (  | talk | history | 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, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I added an article about her return to competition in 2019. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Zero independent sources containing SIGCOV. The newest source is just a couple passing mentions in an article about her partner's return to sport. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:20, 18 June 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! 04:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. but I'm hoping that these new sources mentioned in this AFD discussion can find their way into the article now. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Bandhu Singh

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

On Google search i found just two newspaper sources and that too talks about a single event of his death, definitely no important role. WP:ONEEVENT is applicable. Only source, used in article also have passing reference and nothing more about his biography is available in secondary sources. Hence it fails WP:GNG. Admantine123 ( talk) 03:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Admantine123 ( talk) 03:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This article needs some love, but subject seems to meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Here's some reliable sigcov [61]. Here's a book with some coverage [62]. These together may help [63] [64]. There may also be a language divide here, these sources may not be reliable but point us in a direction: [65] [66] — siro χ o 04:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based on the sourcing provided by Siroxo - it's a bit light but it suggests a proper article can be written.
SportingFlyer T· C 09:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn‎ ( non-admin closure) – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ☖ 17:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Miranda Sings

Miranda Sings (  | talk | history | 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 not separately notable from Colleen Ballinger. While the article is well referenced with reliable sources, these references do not demonstrate separate notability of the character from the performer. Given that this article is in fact longer than the article about Mrs. Ballinger herself, I propose that some content from this article should be merged into that article. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Withdraw Clearly going nowhere. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, United States of America, and Fictional elements. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge – already enough overlap with Colleen Ballinger that WP:SPINOUT does not apply. small jars t c 03:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. This AfD may have a bit of unintentional recency bias, as an apparent recent controversy may have obscured the fact that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG/ WP:WEBCRIT on its own. Note that many of the cited articles are about the character with only a passing reference to the performer's name, eg [67], or making clear a distinction of the character from the performer, eg [68]. Even if it wasn't notable on its own, it's an WP:OKFORK by content and length, (Overlap excluded, articles together are above 6000 words which would be the disqualifier), and also noting that this article predates the article on the performer. — siro χ o 04:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep. The character is independently notable, separate from its creator. It is the subject of thousands of YouTube videos, its own Netflix series and there are hundreds of WP:Reliable sources about the character rather than the creator. Compare Dame Edna Everage and Barry Humphries. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    • (Note:Ssilvers is responsible for most of the content on both articles) This is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. We don't have a separate article for Lily Savage for instance. Miranda Sings is her only notable persona, and her fame is deeply intertwined to the character, to a greater degree than Barry Humphries was to Everage. It makes sense to cover both topics in a single lengthy article. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. We have numerous other articles about comic characters ( Alan Partridge from Steve Coogan, Mr Bean from Rowan Atkinson, Pee-wee Herman from Paul Reubens - the list goes on and on). The character passes GNG, and there is enough distance between character and creator to keep them separate. - SchroCat ( talk) 07:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Independently notable apart from its creator. As said above, there are many instances where a fictional character has its own article independent of its creator. Jack1956 ( talk) 07:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Genuinely surprised to see this nomination. I can't see any advantage to our readers in merging with the Ballinger article. Mentions above of the separate (and welcome) articles for the characters and creators of Dame Edna Everage and Mr Bean are very much ad rem in my view. Tim riley talk 16:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

IBC Balita Ngayon

AfDs for this article:
IBC Balita Ngayon (  | talk | history | 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'm unable to find GNG-level sources for this news show. Recommend Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 02:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ananda Shipyard & Slipways Limited

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

WP:ORGCRITE states that, A notable company should follow WP:GNG, but this company's page doesn't meet this criterion. Deletion recommended. M.parvage ( talk) 11:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • 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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. Those reference appear to be based entirely on announcements/PR so they fail the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 16:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Take the article, Ship-builder eating away Meghna, it is highly critical of the company. What would make you say that it is based on announcements/PR? Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 16:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Being highly critical doesn't mean it meets the criteria for establishing notability. The article relies on information and quotes provided by the company and their executives for some details but in general, there is next to zero in-depth information *about* the company (as required per CORPDEPTH). Most of the article is critical of the activity along the foreshore and the lack of proper enforecement. In my view this reference falls short of NCORP criteria. HighKing ++ 17:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I note Highking has changed their !vote, relisting to consider sources presented by Worldbruce on 16 June.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Daniel's relisting rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Move to draft to provide opportunity for expansion and addition of sources. Right now I can't even tell from the article how old this company is. BD2412 T 03:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    • For what it's worth, the company is 40 years old. One can find in Abedin's 2007 article (and other places) that it was founded in 1983. That information was also in the Wikipedia article until it was gutted of verifiable information, with inadequate explanation, by a 9-edit wonder just eight edits before it was nominated for deletion. The article certainly needs work, but Articles for Deletion is not cleanup, and the place in which the article is most likely to be improved is mainspace. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 06:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - plenty of stuff if you look for it.
As Worldbruce noted above, there are financial scandal(s) not mentioned in the article. [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] Worldbruce also initiated this investigation:
Many thanks to @ Worldbruce
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 03:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Users may mess Ananda Group with Ananta Group PARVAGE talk! 04:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for clarifying this! Just to add to the confusion, it looks like there are two very different companies named Ananda Group: [74], [75]
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
By the way, all the links in my comment above are to articles definitely about this shipbuilding company and not a similarly named entity.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
One Ananda group is from Bangladesh and another one is Indian. But you rightly said that articles definitely about this shipbuilding company, a subsid of Bangladeshi Ananda group. PARVAGE talk! 05:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have expanded the article using mainly sources found in this discussion. The article had at some point been cut back to a stub and needed to be rebuilt, and I've tried to do that. It could use an infobox but I've done what I can.
Commenting editors identified a number of articles that substantially discuss the shipyard, including the ones on scandal reporting from @ Worldbruce like this [76], the TBSNews article [77] and the NDC Journal article [78]. I've also included some cites provided by @ Vinegarymass911. The article about the Meghna river is also substantial coverage, and although I recognize that questions were raised above about its independence there's plenty of independent reporting in the article as well.
My main goal was to raise this beyond a draftify candidate, since it should have been beyond peradventure that this company met notability requirements. Not everything made the cut. If the tagged editors want to have a look perhaps they can find a place for other cites they identified. Comment added by user:Oblivy at 9:52, 26 June 2023‎ Sig added by scope_creep Talk 10:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

NeST (Nepalese Society in Trondheim)

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

Not notable. Tagged as such since creation without improvement. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Nepal, and Norway. Shellwood ( talk) 05:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete, I added some more references but I couldn't find anything past mirror sites and promotional websites. Per nominator, not notable. FatalFit |  ✉ |  ✓  14:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • If consensus turns out to be that this should be kept then the article title should be changed to the non-abbreviated name. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete fails WP:NORG by the looks of it.- KH-1 ( talk) 05:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TV Mania. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Bored with Prozac and the Internet?

Bored with Prozac and the Internet? (  | talk | history | 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:NALBUM. The only source cited is the band's website. I couldn't find any secondary sources. JMB1980 ( talk) 00:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

[79] [80] [81] [82] [83] is everything I could find on the album (the last is a passing mention but might be worth having if this gets kept). Personally, I don't think this is enough and the article should be redirected, but if more coverage is uncovered then that could easily change. As for a redirect target, I think TV Mania is also lacking and should probably be merged into Duran Duran, but that's a whole other discussion and TV Mania is otherwise the most obvious and appropriate target. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 06:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Most of those sources are focused on the band rather than the album. Consequently, a merger or redirect would make more sense. JMB1980 ( talk) 06:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and merge. Currently it's borderline on WP:NALBUM/GNG. But, even if it turns out there's enough SIGCOV, the topic of TV Mania and this album are inextricably linked, and both articles would improve if handled as one. — siro χ o 07:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge: There is some coverage of the album ( [84] USA Today, [85] Mxdwn, [86] Rolling Stone interview) but if TV Mania's only release is this album, it seems reasonable to cover this in context of the TV Mania article per points 2, 3 and 4 of WP:MERGEREASON. As an aside for the TV Mania article, looking through Google Books and News shows plenty of coverage from Billboard, the above USA Today article and a few other promising sources.
Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Barbara Majeski

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal, Miami New Times, KT Network is paid/sponsored coverage. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified ( talk) 00:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete - so many low-quality references -- do 10 ten-percent refs add up to one good 100% ref?? I spent a lot of time looking at them and looking for more.
I am familiar with the local Princeton, NJ publications. They are reliable but so very locally-focused that I hesitate to consider them.
This person is working hard to become famous for being famous and has almost made it.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 01:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Television, Internet, and New Jersey. Skynxnex ( talk) 05:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No independent & reliable sources in article (all coverage is paid or interviews or both), no luck on google. Beyond notes in nom, note that SFGate link is also labeled sponsored and attributed to "Ascend Media". — siro χ o 07:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 16:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Analogue Bubblebath IV

Analogue Bubblebath IV (  | talk | history | 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 PRODDED by User:Donaldd23 with the rationale "Appears to fail WP:NALBUM", and redirected to another article by Explicit after the PROD expired. However an IP restored the content, claiming that WP:NALBUM doesn't apply to EPs (it does), and invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF. So now we have to come here. Mako001  (C)   (T)  🇺🇦 00:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Xclusive Yachts

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

Routine coverage, KT Network of Khaleej Times is a paid article. Fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified ( talk) 00:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

How to Day Trade for a Living

How to Day Trade for a Living (  | talk | history | 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 coverage; no independent reviews of this book found. Fails WP:NBOOK. US-Verified ( talk) 00:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep thanks for the ping, Wikipedia:Notability (books) requires tow independent sources which Investopedia and Business Insider are not paid. Singularitywiki ( talk) 00:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Singularitywiki - see Reliable sources/Perennial sources (a.k.a. " WP:RSP" -- it's a useful list especially when working with marginally notable articles may rely on iffier sources. Investopedia is listed as a bad source; it even gets its own Wikipedia shortcut: WP:INVESTOPEDIA.
I've seen Business Insider on my newsfeed and I've wondered about it. For this AfC, I started researching its reliability. Business Insider is listed at WP:RSP as "Insider" (the parent company), not "Business Insider"; it also gets its own shortcut: WP:BUSINESSINSIDER. It's been the subject of 2 lengthy RfCs which closed with no consensus:
and 11 other discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard - possibly a record. It's generally viewed as iffy and inconsistent.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 02:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: the author's bio is listed at Articles for deletion/Andrew Aziz
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 02:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
BI "license to print money" No interview with author ~ WP:BI No doesn't even mention this book, just links to amazon ✘ No
bi books Yes ~ ~ barebones, most significant note is "Aziz explains how day trading works, how to choose stocks, how to choose a day trading platform, and more." rest is less detailed repetition ~ Partial
investopedia classes ? No No doesn't mention book ✘ No
yahoo gobankingrates ? No gobankingrates No small amount of data about ratings and rankings of book ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
  • Delete per siroxo's detailed source analysis above. I think that it is clear that the referencing except Insider are clearly not SIGCOV. For Business Insider, whether it is a WP:RS in this circumstance is complicated- the RSP section notes that There is no consensus on the reliability of Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also: Insider (culture). This is a case that falls under finance instead of culture sections, so the reliability is iffy (I will disclaim that in the latest RfC a year ago, which is specifically for news reporting, I voted option 1/2). Moreover, I do no think that it meets SIGCOV per GNG or constitute as a full-length review per WP:NBOOK#1, as the content is very short at 130 words and part of a listicle. Overall, because there are reliability and SIGCOV concerns with Insider, the current sourcing very weak, even if one generously assumes it counts, that is still only one source. Unfortunately, my search on Google and other reviewing websites (Kirkus, PW, and Booklist) failed to find suitable sources and only unreliable ones like this. As other NBOOK criteria are also not met, I am at a delete. VickKiang (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Like VickKiang, I checked the usual places, found nothing. -- asilvering ( talk) 23:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Andrew Aziz (trader)

Andrew Aziz (trader) (  | talk | history | 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 coverage in Forbes Councils, KT Network of Khaleej Times. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified ( talk) 00:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep I removed KT and Forbes (was a profile page, not a paid source really), and added few recent rs. Should meet Wikipedia:NAUTHOR, having two independent rs. Thanks for the ping. Singularitywiki ( talk) 00:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: - one of the author's books is listed at Articles for deletion/How to Day Trade for a Living
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 02:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
business insider bio ~ largely interview ~ WP:BI Yes ~ Partial
[87] marketwatch Yes Yes No very little about subject, it's about trading ✘ No
himalayan times ~ quote attributed to subject's expedition leader, photo credited to subject Yes Yes ~ Partial
style.yahoo No No gobankingrates ~ ✘ No
business insider books Yes ~ WP:BI No snippet about a book ✘ No
yahoo finance money experts No interview No gobankingrates ~ ✘ No
Investopedia coursees ? ~ No about course ✘ No
yahoo finance day trading via benzinga ~ mostly quote ? No not ABOUT subject ✘ No
gobankingrates 100 ? No gobankingrates ~ ✘ No
gobankingrates 100 at yahoo ? No gobankingrates ~ ✘ No
business insider Career tips ~ references other BI article ~ No ✘ No
gobankingrates 3 things ? No Yes ✘ No
Money Times No mostly interview Yes ~ mostly interview ✘ No
SSRN paper No by subject ? ? ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
  • Delete per siroxo's fantastic source assessment table. I don't count interviews towards SIGCOV, so the Himalayan Times and Business insider bio sources fail in my books. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 10:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete thanks to Siroxo's source examination. -- SouthernNights ( talk) 12:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Bethany Convent School, Prayagraj

Bethany Convent School, Prayagraj (  | talk | history | 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 and WP:ORG, with all sources being related to the school. There was an AfD discussion in 2013, which closed as keep, before the RfC on secondary schools that reached a consensus that they are not inherently notable. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 00:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Linkme

Linkme (  | talk | history | 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 coverage (guest posts) in LA Weekly, KT Network of Khaleej Times, Vents, BI Africa, US Weekly. Fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified ( talk) 00:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Florida. Skynxnex ( talk) 05:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I read about 10 sources, and they all have problems. Some are way too positive and hypey, some are just flat out a sales pitch, and some are quite obviously written by a "guest contributor" or say things like "The content featured in this article is brand produced.". Unable to find any independent content, so appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_June_25&oldid=1163095374"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 24 June 26 >

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 redirect‎ to Del Water Gap#Discography. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Del Water Gap (album)

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

Album article previously converted to redirect and recently restored. Does not seem to pass WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Mbdfar ( talk) 23:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Restore redirect per nomination and Richard3120's justification. Though, frankly, the artist doesn't look particularly notable apart from this, his only album so far, and both articles may be worth deleting. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 01:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment I believe the target subject passes WP:NBAND. The major contributor needs to understand that the article is not to be used as a public relations medium that is an extension of the subject's own social media/website. The major contributor appears to be his PR agent (based on editing pattern, and their discussion in talk page saying they have permission from photographer and such) Graywalls ( talk) 05:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Restore redirect as above. The contribution history of the editor Deer876 ( talk · contribs) is all/nearly 100% about Del Water Gap over a sufficiently long period of time to suggest self advocacy or editing for the subject or his record label. Graywalls ( talk) 04:17, 2 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! 23:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Mikhail Tsaturian

Mikhail Tsaturian (  | talk | history | 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 semi-promotional article on an artist does not meet criteria for notability per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. The sourcing is very weak, and most sources do not mention him at all or fail verification with the exception of one that mentions an NFT he made, and another which is a sponsored project he did for an alcoholic beverage company. A BEFORE search using his name as well as his pseudonym only reveals social media and user-submitted content. No evidence of important exhibitions at museums or national galleries, no museum collections. Possibly TOOSOON? Netherzone ( talk) 23:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete I agree entirely, the existing sourcing is poor and I can't find any better sources supporting notability. JaggedHamster ( talk) 15:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I just deleted this article on the Russian-language Wikipedia. I could not find weighty art awards and prizes, no quality independent reviews of his work, and no reviews of his creative path. -- Khinkali ( talk) 15:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article infobox contains a link to his site which is cited as a source for many claims in the article body. The site itself is offline (whois reports it as not being registered). Internet Archive does have a copy of the site from 2022, which gives an impression of a freelance designer who also occasionally displays his works at places without any curation, likely to promote his professional services. The the article mentions a few works, but none of them appears to have any third-party coverage at all. Anton.bersh ( talk) 10:37, 2 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 List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present). This incident is already listed on the target article but the listing is unsourced and this article can supply references. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 Syria helicopter accident

2023 Syria helicopter accident (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One small incident in a war; nothing to make it notable at all. (The article was proposed for deletion ( WP:PROD) and the creator of the article contested the proposal.) JBW ( talk) 22:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi Deeday-UK! How do you feel about going from 1 to 3 sentences on the accident here plus adding missing sources through a merge? The article would still disappear, as you suggest, while adding quality elsewhere. gidonb ( talk) 23:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Hi Grahaml35! Did you also consider WP:ATDs? gidonb ( talk) 13:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply
It has already been added to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present) and I believe the information on that article is sufficient. Therefore, I do not believe a WP:ATD is necessary. Grahaml35 ( talk) 13:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

WOH S279

WOH S279 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NASTRO, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV and entirely relies on large-scale surveys. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 19:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Article briefly PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, I guess. Seems a pity; would be nice to have somewhere to transwiki this sort of thing. -- Visviva ( talk) 23:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

WOH S281

WOH S281 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Definitely does not meet WP:NASTRO, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The article only relies on a single source (excluding its SIMBAD entry), that itself is a large-scale survey and does not establish notability. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 19:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Article briefly PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, I guess. Seems a pity, but as noted above there just isn't much to work with here. -- Visviva ( talk) 23:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 19:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Teals Crossroads, Alabama

Teals Crossroads, Alabama (  | talk | history | 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'm not seeing any coverage to establish notability for this intersection aside from being mentioned in various lists of places. – dlthewave ☎ 18:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • delete Aerials (and in this case U Alabama has extra coverage) show that a store appeared around 1963-'64; its vacant building is still there, and there might have been another business across the road (now gone). I can find nothing narrative about the place, and the only non-listing name drops I can find are WRT a tornado that passed through the area, causing no significant damage however, and a cemetery maybe half a mile north attached to a relatively new church. I have to think this was always just a crossroads. Mangoe ( talk) 00:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Barbour County, Alabama#Communities where it's listed as an unincorporated community and maybe add in its co-ordinates so it can be located on maps. There's inhabited property round abouts and a modern church, but it doesn't look like it fulfills the legally recognised populated place criterion of WP:GEOLAND. If it was on a State Route or US Highway and the crossroads widely referred to, it could have been a redirect to the relevant road, but here the roads are County Roads. Similar to Spring Hill, except that place has notable residents and a notable church. Doesn't seem to be anything of note here though, now or historically. Rupples ( talk) 20:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm not necessarily opposed to a redirect, but it will need to be removed from the "Communities" list unless we have a reliable source that describes it as such. I don't see any evidence that the surrounding homes are part of, or known as, Teals Crossroads. – dlthewave ☎ 22:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Changing from redirect as dlthewave rightly states lack of evidence for the surrounding houses/church use of the name. Rupples ( talk) 00:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 21:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Benchmark, South Dakota

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

GNIS spam. Although the name appears on topo maps, I could find no evidence of a community or notable place at this location. – dlthewave ☎ 17:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • delete This looks like a mistake at some point where someone converted the benchmark which is there into a place name. I can find no evidence at any era that there was anything else here. Mangoe ( talk) 01:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I like places, but this isn't much of a place. Google Earth shows there's not even a cross-roads or a house at this location; I wonder if there's a mistake in the coordinates. There are several dozen homes on dirt roads scattered over about a square mile 3/4 mile to the northwest.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 12:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see the consensus here as against Deletion of these articles but that editors are open to Redirection or Merger of some of these pages if the nominator or another editor would like to pursue those options. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Envy & Other Sins

Envy & Other Sins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Highness (song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We Leave at Dawn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs recorded by Envy & Other Sins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Band and associated articles do not appear to be notable. Couldn't find any coverage beyond the NME article sourced in the band's article. Only one single charted, but it was only in the bottom half of the chart for one week. Could merge/redirect what little is here to Orange unsignedAct, though the notability of that series is also questionable. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 17:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Albums and songs, and England. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 17:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Weak Keep WP:BAND#2 applies as WP:CHART is top 100 and they hit #65. Band#5 doesn't apply as they only had one major label album.
    I was almost at delete because I did a series of searches and can't find anything other than the NME article. It could be this content could be merged into one of the other band articles for Jim Macaulay the drummer, but only The Stranglers mentions him and he was a replacement drummer which means he's not really fundamental to their history. So this article is the place, and they squeak through with that charted single. Oblivy ( talk) 02:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Again, it appeared on a weekly chart for just one week, and not particularly high. Just because it placed on a chart at all doesn't necessarily mean it passes. And even then, that's one song that charted, not the album. It could be a keep for the song (though I still disagree with that) but that doesn't necessarily transfer to the album or band. Remember that notability is not inherited. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 03:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    I did not make a WP:Inherited argument. If an article satisfies a notability criterion, it satisfies it. There's no time-on-the-chart requirement in WP:BAND. Oblivy ( talk) 05:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
OK, looking again I see you've nominated everything relating to this band in one fell swoop. The single does apply to the band, per WP:BAND#2. The album, fair enough, although it's more an argument for merging the album article into the band's page than outright deletion. Oblivy ( talk) 05:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
About the album: Drowned in Sound Gigwise Yahoo! Music Belfast Telegraph NME
And about the single: DIY Digital Spy NME Stuff
I'll admit that none of the articles is in a particularly good state, and I was probably more than a little overzealous when I created the "Songs recorded by" list, so that one can probably be redirected. But, personally, I think these articles' problems are not insurmountable and that the band meets the WP:GNG. Thanks, A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 09:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the band article and merge or redirect the other articles to the band article. The Drowned in Sound review, Yorkshire Evening Post, Birmingham Mail, Belfast Telegraph and paragraph from The Guardian are enough for WP:GNG of the band in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 17:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Welco Corners, Illinois

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

Sourced only to GNIS, there's no evidence that Welco Corners was ever anything more than a highway junction. My BEFORE search returned nothing that described this as a community, much less an officially-recognized one, and sources primarily use it as a landmark ("The highway was repaved from Welco Corners to the county line") which isn't sufficient to establish notability. – dlthewave ☎ 17:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - Google Earth shows this as another intersection in an area of sprawl in Metro Chicago. The Interstate exit sign says "Joliet Road", not Welco Corners. Today, there's nothing distinctive about this location. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 11:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There is no sourcing for this article and there is no reason to believe this place is notable enough to warrant an article.-- Mpen320 ( talk) 04:08, 2 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! 17:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Red Rock, Yavapai County, Arizona

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

At its heart, this article is just another piece of GNIS spam. I couldn't find any coverage of a place called Red Rock aside from Red Rock State Park. "Red Rock Crossing" seems to be a simple road crossing of the river which is sourced only to a now-defunct special interest group which opposed a proposed bridge. – dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - This appears to be a populated place:
Most important, go to Google Maps, or any map, and you'll see a community of many houses there, and one of the roads in the community is Schuermans Drive. Magnolia677 ( talk) 18:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 01:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Chris Senn (video game designer)

Chris Senn (video game designer) (  | talk | history | 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:N, not independently notable, and no significant coverage from any reliable source OceanHok ( talk) 17:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I know his involvement with Sonic Xtreme is heavily documented in reliable sources in a general sense, but it would take reviewing to verify that the coverage is truly about him - much of it may be more in the context of the game rather than him. Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The current sources in the article are not suitable for establishing notability, and searches did not really turn up any coverage on Senn. There were some books and articles that have quotes from him, in regards to his work on Sonic Xtreme, but like Sergecross73 suggested, this kind of coverage is really on Sonic Xtreme, and not actual coverage about Senn, himself. I also took a quick look around for sources on his current company, Senntertain, and similarly did not find much coverage in reliable sources on it. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Keti Chomata

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 23:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply


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

Keti Chomata's article only has 5 sources, one of them is inaccessible, another one is a blog, another doesn't even mention her and the other two are from two different Greek newspapers, one of them being a celebrity gossip newspaper so not reliable. This leaves a sole article from Lifo newspaper, definitely not enough to establish notability. Fails WP:NBASIC and all 12 criteria for WP:SINGER. No relevant newspapers articles and google results can be found online either. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 15:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. You simply have to search in Greek (or whichever minor, in e.g. number of speakers, modern language you deal with) to find relevant stuff, it's as simple as that. So unless the real criterion is either Anglophones know about it or it doesn't exist, please refrain from such hasty proposals.
PS. I'm adding more and/or fixing refs now.
Thanatos| talk| contributions 19:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The subject might be more known in Greece but this is the English Wikipedia and it must be relevant to the Anglophone speakers which is definitely not the case. Furthermore after looking through the Greek results, Keti Chomata only has a couple of articles about her and most of them are quite short, just having 2 or 3 paragraphs or a video, the rest of the articles results are just mere passages of her name, the same applies to the books, just passages of her name and definitely not enough to establish notability. SpaceEconomist192 ✐
    @ SpaceEconomist192: this is the English Wikipedia and it must be relevant to the Anglophone speakers ← That is absolutely not how it works. All we care is that something is significant according to reliable sources—not that those reliable sources are in English. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 23:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I didn't say it needs English sources, I'm aware of WP:NOENG. I already refuted the premise that the subject had reliable sources in Greek. SpaceEconomist192 ✐

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as well as the Lifo article the first three references in the Greek wikipedia article here show significant coverage directly about her. It also states that she had a number of hit singles from her 18 released albums. There is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Regents' and Chancellor's Scholarship

Regents' and Chancellor's Scholarship (  | talk | history | 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 is not notable ElKevbo ( talk) 14:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Doesn't really seem to be a coherent topic; sources, such as they are, talk about one or the other but not both together. It's possible that the Regent's Scholarship by itself could be a notable topic, but I'm not seeing much evidence of it. If there is anything of encyclopedic significance to be covered about that scholarship, it could probably be addressed in the Regents of the University of California article. -- Visviva ( talk) 00:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 17:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Yuri Agapov

Yuri Agapov (  | talk | history | 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 and WP:SPORTCRIT. Only sourced to databases. Non database coverage is only this routine namecheck that has one sentence about him and player roster listing. Kges1901 ( talk) 15:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Kges1901 ( talk) 15:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Agapov had two useful seasons in the Russian second division with FC Fakel and one good season in Kazakhstan with FC Shakhter, but I couldn't find any in-depth coverage (the sports.kz article linked above and a sovsport.ru article make very brief mentions, and there are several match reports with even less coverage). Jogurney ( talk) 14:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Regardless of whether it's a hoax or not, we're lacking in reliable source coverage. Star Mississippi 17:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Talkan and Curcan massacres

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

Sourcing and tone leave a lot to be desired. A few of the sources seem to be unreliable fringe publications, others are inaccessible. With an alleged death toll of over 100k, I'm finding it hard to pull up any reliable academic sourcing that would even establish the existence of the massacres. Mooonswimmer 15:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete. I couldn’t find any reliable source in google books or any recognizable academic institution or publisher showing anything as “Talkan and Curcan massacres”. Almost all the cited sources are inaccessible, unreliable or unrecognizable sources, quotes like quoting al-hajaj saying “he is an enemy to muslims, kill him without any mercy” can’t be found in any accessible reliable source or anywhere in general, it seems that the page is made for nationalistic and/or propagandistic purpose and have nothing to do with history and meets wp:HOAX criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chafique ( talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Islam, and Central Asia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for lack of sourcing, appears OR, or HOAX. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • It's not a hoax. The place is Taloqan (also spelled Talaqan). You can read al-Tabari's account here. These events took on great significance in Kemalist historiography, so I'm sure there some unreliable stuff out there. However, it is not a hoax. Srnec ( talk) 20:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    First of all, al-Tabari isn’t a reliable source per WP:RS. Second of all it’s not al-Tabari reporting here, he is mentioning a report by an anonymous source (note also that the word “massacre” is never used and there is no mention for Curcan). Finally there is no single academic or any reliable historical secondary source mentioning anything about a such massacre or incident, whether some kemalist politicians or propaganda promote hoax or not for political reasons it’s not relevant here. Chafique ( talk) 22:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    The footnote in al-Tabari refers to Gibb, which is freely available online. For a brief survey of the contradictory traditions mentioned by Gibb, see Andrew Marsham, "Public Execution in the Umayyad Period: Early Islamic Punitive Practice and its Late Antique Context," Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 11 (2011): 101–136, at 131 (also available freely online). It isn't a hoax and that is not a valid grounds for deletion. For a Kemalist textbook treatment, see Başar Ari, "Religion and Nation-building in the Turkish Republic: Comparison of High School History Textbooks of 1931–41 and of 1942–50," Turkish Studies 14.2 (2013): 372–393 (quoted at 380). Srnec ( talk) 01:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    The footnote in al-Tabari refers to Gibb. again, you are missing the main point, Al-Tabari himself is not a reliable source and a wikipedia article can’t be established based on his writings per WP:RS. You need a reliable secondary source to establish the topic’s notability and prove it’s existence (check WP:PST).
    just a side question relatively unrelated to the discussion, can you tell us who is Gibb ?
    For a Kemalist textbook treatment, see Başar Ari, "Religion and Nation-building in the Turkish Republic: Comparison of High School History Textbooks of 1931–41 and of 1942–50," Now regarding kemalist political propagada textbooks, they are not reliable sources neither, they are heavily criticized by A LOT of academic and reliable sources for genocide denial and promoting propaganda and poor to no reputation for facts checking facts or with editorial oversight, there is an entire wikipedia article with tons of sources called Turkish textbook controversies, they are not reliable sources per WP:QUESTIONED. Aside from that, can you send us the quote from that source where the author (himself) says “talqan massacre” or “talqan people were massacred” or mention anything about curcan ?, because I can’t find it.
    "Public Execution in the Umayyad Period: Early Islamic Punitive Practice and its Late Antique Context," Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 11 (2011): 101–136, at 131 (also available freely online). no mention for a massacre nor for anything about curcan. Chafique ( talk) 18:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 see a consensus to Delete these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 16:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Germanic-speaking world

Germanic-speaking world (  | talk | history | 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 am also nominating the following related pages because of the same problems:

Romance-speaking world (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Romance-speaking Africa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iberophone (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Finno-Ugric countries (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Sections are largely WP:COATRACKs of tangentially related stuff and WP:UNSOURCED or WP:SYNTHed (e.g. Germanic-speaking world randomly combines bits and pieces of Germania/ Germanic peoples history, then an WP:UNSOURCED list of speakers of Germanic languages, then another WP:UNSOURCED table, and then two WP:SYNTHed tables about two Germanic languages in particular).

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries, which deleted

following a very, very long series of precedents which established that language family is WP:NONDEFINING for countries.

Indirectly, this AfD is linked to:

  1. Comparison of the Baltic states has been deleted.
  2. Comparison of the Benelux countries has been deleted.
  3. Comparison of the Nordic countries has been deleted.

It's also worth noting that List of Austronesian regions was found to be "OR nonsense", and redirected. Germanic-speaking Europe already redirects to Languages of Europe#Germanic, and Romance-speaking Europe to Languages of Europe#Romance. So redirecting rather than fully deleting is perhaps also an option. But it is not my preference, because those articles usually have their own problems with sourcing, OR/SYNTH and whatnot. Before deciding we should redirect/merge articles, we should make sure we aren't just moving the problems to somewhere else without actually solving them. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 10:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, while there might be language topics that merit articles, creating articles from broad groups like "Germanic" or "Romance" is, as mentioned, trivia or OR. Iberophone could be deleted or redirected to the actual topic of Organization of Ibero-American States. Finno-Urgic countries seems a plausible search, so I would redirect that to Finno-Ugric languages. CMD ( talk) 12:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree with the reasoning given. We've seen over and over that people making these articles are either adding nothing to the articles we have about language families, or else what they are are adding are implied racial folk-theories. (The classic discussions we always have about how Afrikaners should be included, but not Jamaicans or Irish.) I think it is easier to source ways of dividing up Europe based on which alcoholic drinks they drink, or whether they cook with butter or olive oil, and I don't think we have articles on those. Language families are certainly discussed in Wikipedia as language families, but not as types of people. Correlations between languages and ancestry or cultures are for careful discussion within articles (if there are good sources) and not just things our editors may assume to be "obvious" without sources. -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Couldn't have said it better myself. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 16:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Iberophone and delete the rest. Unlike the other nominated articles, Iberophone is referenced to sources that deal with the concept, http://isdiber.org/paniberismo-e-iberofonia-2/ and https://escholarship.org/uc/ssha_transmodernity and https://oei.int/ rather than to sources that deal with a specific language rather than a language family. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 23:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    When you boil it down to the essentials, Iberophone doesn't really amount to much. The article does not advance much further than a dictionary definition ( WP:NOTDICT) plus some WP:UNSOURCED or WP:SYNTHed "country comparison" data dumps, which are currently being considered for total deletion/removal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables. It's either a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Iberian Romance languages (=language sub-family, a branch of the Romance languages family), or just + Hispanophone + Lusophone. There is nothing more to add beyond 'Hey, did you know that Spanish and Portuguese are closely-related Romance languages that originated next to each other in the Iberian Peninsula, and also sit next to each other in South America? There's even a neologism for it: Iberophone. What great fun!' That's all there is to it, really. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 09:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Besides, the http://isdiber.org/paniberismo-e-iberofonia-2/ is very telling: it advances a certain political agenda by advocating for a geopolitical approach called pan-Iberism. It mixes supposed facts ("this reality") and opinions ("this proposal"): [There is a] substantial affinity between the two main Iberian languages (...). This reality means that, in geopolitical, geolinguistic and cultural terms, it is possible to speak of a large multinational space of Iberian-speaking countries that covers all the continents and is made up of more than thirty countries and more than 700 million people. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that we have been needing to delete and remove in recent years/months, in which language families and countries were mixed up to produce lots of WP:CROSSCAT generalisations and oversimplified framings of countries and territories (and their populations) in terms of the language family to which the native languages - which the majority of their inhabitants speak - belong. That's just a plainly WP:TRIVIAL, WP:NONDEFINING fact (which has no bearing on any native speaker's career per WP:OCEGRS, as precedents have repeatedly confirmed). And Wikipedia shouldn't play along with anyone trying to advocate for a certain political agenda based on - encyclopedically speaking - WP:TRIVIAL, WP:NONDEFINING facts. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 10:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on Iberophone?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete all as original research. The other four are transparent synthesis and I'm convinced by Nederlandse Leeuw's analysis of Iberophone. –  Joe ( talk) 15:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per nom; unacceptable combinations of OR and synthesis. Iseult Δx parlez moi 15:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Raja Rani 2 (Tamil TV series)

Raja Rani 2 (Tamil TV series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

  • Source 1 is a routine update on the serial's ending
  • Source 2 is a routine update on the serial's ending
  • Source 3 is a routine promotional update on the serial's starting, and is mainly Instagram posts with cast views
  • Source 4 is on the cast getting a tattoo
  • Source 5 is tabloid news with pictures of the shooting spot
  • Source 6 is a routine entertainment promo that describes an Instagram post
  • Source 7 is an interview with a cast member Karnataka ( talk) 10:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and Tamil Nadu. Karnataka ( talk) 10:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep:more value source added, WP:GNG have added references from News18 India [10], www.medianews4u.com [11], The Times of India [12]. sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources.-- P.Karthik.95 ( talk) 10:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    I still don't think these sources explain the notability of the topic:
    • Link 5 is routine updates on the casting (news18)
    • I'm not sure about Link 6's reliability as a website. however regardless it seems to be a routine entertainment news that states generic information about the source available everywhere else (mn4u)
    • Link 7 is a routine update on an actress leaving the serial (ToI, which is unreliable anyways.)
    Karnataka ( talk) 14:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Abhilash Shetty

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

NN filmmaker UtherSRG (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep the Article. Article have the major references & enough coverage from the media. Trident 1289 ( talk) 07:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC) — Trident 1289 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete No significant coverage except a movie Koli Taal, Which is also not much notable. PARVAGE talk! 05:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Koli Taal is a notable film in India. It got screened at various international film festivals too. I see you are from Bangladesh so probably you are not aware of this. Please check the film.  Trident 1289 ( talk) 08:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Koli Taal has got 131 reviews in IMDB, 1 review in Rotten Tomatoes. And it hasn't received any notable awards. Especially, not matter what the movie is but Shetty hasn't done any notable things at all. PARVAGE talk! 10:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep There are more than six full-length articles already cited that meet notability of this person. There is enough coverage from the leading newspapers, magazines of India. And the person has more than five credits on IMDb with 3 wins & 19 nominations at the Awards central. Trident 1289 ( talk) 11:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC) — Trident 1289 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 14:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Vanakkam Tamizha

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan ( talk) 20:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Modussiccandi ( talk) 19:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

List of women killed fighting for human rights

List of women killed fighting for human rights (  | talk | history | 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 criteria for this list is not clear, and "fighting for human rights" is a very vague motive. There's also no good reason to limit it to women. Songwaters ( talk) 14:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The reason to delete is not policy based. We make lists based on how reliable sources group things and the first citation shows that grouping people killed for human rights, are grouped as women.
The "no reason to limit to..." concept could be applied to any list. Why limit it to just those killed? Why limit it to only ones killed for human rights? The answer is always because WP:NLIST handles them in this collective way. CT55555( talk) 01:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Besides failing WP:NLIST (more on that in a second), the inclusion criterion is hopelessly vague -- killed fighting for human rights? Even "human rights" is a slippery term without a widely agreed upon definition, let alone the difficulty of trying to determine if someone was killed fighting for them. As expected, this article is just going to have unfixable WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH issues. Take for example the case of Shifa Gardi. She appears in the Guardian's list referenced in the list's lead with the following text:

    "Shifa Gardi was a reporter for the Kurdish channel Rudaw. She had been credited for breaking the “stereotypes of male-dominated journalism”. She was killed by a roadside bomb while covering the battle for Mosul on 25 February."

    How is being a wartime reporter fighting for human rights? Including her on this list for that reason is a stretch and a half; indeed even the articles listed as refs by her entry in the list (one BBC, another in Arabic, so I had to use a machine translation) say nothing about "human rights".
    But wait, I hear you say, we have reliable sources that discuss this topic as a set. Just look at the references in the lead! Okay, the first one, from The Guardian is "supported" content -- supported by "Count Me In!", a consortium of groups with a clear agenda. That's not really a value judgement, but it does count against the independence of the source for demonstrating notability. Not to mention that the Gardi example I mentioned above calls into question the reliability of this article due to it's unclear inclusion criteria. The other source is from AWID, an activist organization. This again, disqualifies it from establishing notability on independence (and probably reliability for that matter) grounds. Not only that, but it's simply a memorial list of women activists, regardless of how they died.
    That was a long !vote, but this one deserved a closer look. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 04:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    You are correct to note that Count Me In! support the content, but if you click through, it says "The site is editorially independent of any external support, and the Guardian is solely responsible for all journalistic output."
    Other sources that deal with the killing of women human rights defenders:
    1. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/mar/02/more-human-rights-defenders-murdered-2021-environmental-indigenous-rights-activists (not the primary subject, but discussed in 2 paragraphs)
    2. La Lucha (2015 book) Preface speaks about women human rights defenders who were killed, giving examples.
    3. Protecting Human Rights Defenders at Risk, 2020 book: Page 108
    CT55555( talk) 00:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Your first source is about all people and not about women specifically. And as you argued above, "... and the first citation [in the article] shows that grouping people killed for human rights, are grouped as women." You can't have it both ways. The third source similarly seems to be discussing all people, whereas the page number you mention is talking about one specific incident. The second source doesn't seem to be discussing women specifically at all...you're just throwing words into a search box and parading around any hits you get as some sort of magical potion to justify a list, but it doesn't work like that. The very sources you bring up are, if anything, evidence against this particular list. And really, at best, what you're doing here is starting to show notability of the overall topic of "violence against human rights activists" or something along those lines (which might even exist already...I haven't looked). But just because we might have an article about that doesn't mean that we should create a list of every incident. Lists like this are beyond problematic due to the unfixable OR/SYNTH issues that I mentioned above. They also smack of WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:RGW to a lesser extent. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 20:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    The first link is about all genders, but then groups by gender and talks about women: "A larger proportion of murdered defenders were women and transgender women, 18% of the total killed compared with 13% in 2020. We’ve seen the horrific killing of women human rights defenders in Afghanistan, including Frozan Safi..."
    The second one groups the defender as women in the preface.
    The third one groups four women on the page cited.
    I am not "just throwing words into a search box" nor am I "parading" anything. I'm doing the normal thing to justify keeping a list, showing you examples if reliable sources grouping the subject of the list.
    If you don't find that persuasive, that's OK. Please do assume good faith.
    I think a careful reading of the WP:NOTMEMORIAL will make it clear why this does not refute my point or support deletion, I don't think there is any credible claim that anyone is writing about "deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances..."
    Let's agree to disagree and leave more space for others. I've made my point, I don't wish to bludgeon. CT55555( talk) 16:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. "Human rights" is too broad (and vague) per WP:SALAT. (Also, Emily Davison did herself in.) Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I originally thought I'd find myself in favor of keeping this, but it's absolutely just way too broad and too vague. This one fails the WP:NLIST requirements, so it should be deleted from Wiki. Some content might be able to merge to other articles, but having a dedicated list isn't feasible here. Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. At risk of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, to the editors who think that "human rights" is a vague term, it does seem to work fine for List of human rights organisations and we seem to be able to deal with the topic without trouble at Human Rights. We manage to categorise XCategory:Human rights by country, XCategory:Human rights abuses and dozens of others. So what's the problem exactly? CT55555( talk) 16:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete “human rights” is well defined, more or less. “Fighting for” human rights is not, making this WP:SYNTH. This might as well be retitled “ list of women who I think should be considered martyrs” Dronebogus ( talk) 00:45, 3 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 14:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Thalattu (TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

  • Source 1 is routine entertainment coverage on serial starting and summarises the promo
  • Source 2 is routine entertainment coverage on serial starting and summarises the promo
  • Source 3 is routine entertainment coverage on serial starting and is entirely based on Instagram posts supporting the serial
  • Source 1 is routine entertainment coverage on serial starting and summarises the promo Karnataka ( talk) 22:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Karnataka ( talk) 22:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - seems to have noteworthy coverage in both English ( [13], [14], [15], [16]) and Tamil, judging by the corresponding Tamil article. - Knightoftheswords281 ( Talk · Contribs) 23:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ponni (TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan ( talk) 22:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep or Soft Delete: there’s a source from The Times of India [17] and News18 India [18]. There may be important updates in the future because the show is still airing.-- P.Karthik.95 ( talk) 09:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Both these sources listed (source 1 and 3) are just routine coverage of the show, they both contain the exact same content with the layout:
    • Introduction, which includes a list of actors
    • Plot summary
    • Interview from the protagonist
    • List of other serials going to premiere
    Source 2 is just a Tamil version of source 1, source 4 is a self-published source, and its expertise is unknown, and and source 5 does not mention Ponni at all. I cannot see how this is notable at this moment. Karnataka ( talk) 14:55, 10 June 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, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Pandavar Illam

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan ( talk) 22:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Longest running Tamil serial, WP:GNG have added references from The Times of India [19]. and Sun TV Website [20] and more Episode coverage in Tamil language. [21], [22].-- P.Karthik.95 ( talk) 10:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Source 1 aka the Times of India source on this reply is routine promotional coverage on the serial hitting a certain milestone and quotes from the actors
    • Source 2 is routine coverage on the promotional video and repeatedly states that something detail about the serial is unknown
    • Source 3 is a self published source, and its expertise is currently unknown. The entire body of this source is "Serial story coming soon..." with a list of actors
    • Source 4 is also a self published source, and its expertise is currently unknown. It just lists the serial cast (taking from this archive because the source isn't loading for me)
    • Source 5 is routine coverage about the cast receiving their COVID-19 vaccination
    This reply links to the show's page on Sun TV (the channel airing the serial which is not independent), which is not a source and none of this proves how this serial is notable for Wikipedia. Karnataka ( talk) 15:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Mohamad Jaamour

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

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. is what WP:SPORTBASIC tells us is a requirement for any footballer to have their own article. I've revived the Syrian Soccer article but it's only a trivial squad list mention. Kooora merely lists his goals in the Syria Youth League and is only a database source. I found some Arabic coverage on Facebook but that's not a WP:RS. The only other source that I found was ZAMANALWSL, which is another trivial mention. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 OpenAI. ✗ plicit 14:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Triton (programming language)

Triton (programming language) (  | talk | history | 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 significant coverage in reliable sources, better to redirect to OpenAI, or merge if it's worth mentioning Artem.G ( talk) 11:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Omar Al Hamwi

Omar Al Hamwi (  | talk | history | 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 has been tagged for multiple issues for many years and I cannot find evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The Psyrianp source has a quote from him and, other than that, just confirms his age, position and former club. On its own, this won't be sufficient, especially since quotes directly from the player are not considered to be WP:SIGCOV at AfD, by consensus. Aside from that, I found Al Rai, which is only a trivial mention. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 08:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Nicholas Griffin (philosopher)

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

Not notable. Seems promotional Very Average Editor ( talk) 07:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)) reply

Delete As nominator. Also worth noting, most of the contributors are a sock master and his socks. Very Average Editor ( talk)07:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 16:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Danial Zakaria

Danial Zakaria (  | talk | history | 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 NCREATIVE. Non-notable creative professional with no significant coverage. I also cannot find coverage of the subject’s creative works. Fancy Refrigerator ( talk) 10:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. I took a look myself and I'm not seeing anything that would suggest they meet NCREATIVE either. I also couldn't find any detailed secondary coverage of their films. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus here is to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

FountainVest Partners

FountainVest Partners (  | talk | history | 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:NCORP. Refs are routine business news. scope_creep Talk 05:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep this one from the SCMP is a portrait of FountainInvest. The sources are independent such as Reuters, the company has majority stakes in household names such as Wilson(Basketballs), Atomic (Skiing), Salomon. It has acquired (together with others) majority stakes in two of the best known ski manufacturers in the world and that's just one of their investment. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 06:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
No, not really. And they are not household names. What it looks like is a brochure advertising article similar to the ones created by Tim Templeton. scope_creep Talk 10:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Could you show me one of Tim Templeton to compare? I tried to find him over UserːTim Templeton, but he doesn't exist. And if you ever went Skiing or have played or watched Basketball or Tennis, you'd be rather familiar with those names. The outdoor clothes ( Arc'terix) they also partly own are really popular as well. Have you ever gone past a Papa John's Pizza restaurant? In China its theirs as well. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 11:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
He was blocked and most of his stuff has been deleted. But the type of article that being created are identical to the type of stuff he used to create. What they own is not a definition of notability. scope_creep Talk 13:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Paradise Chronicle. He's referring to User:Timtempleton. I think I now get why I have multiple articles flagged. One that user's latest drafts was on Stone Point Capital which I have tried working on today so he may think I am that guy. Maybe I should stop thinking of even trying to recreate articles of drafts that were previously deleted since I have gotten into bigger messes doing so. - Imcdc Contact 16:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Ref 1 [34] Profile. WP:PRIMARY.
  • Ref 2 [35] Company report. Non-RS.
  • Ref 3 [36] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 4 [37] Interview with the founder. Fails WP:ORGIND
  • Ref 5 [38] Taken from Tang speaking at a conference. Fails WP:ORGIND
  • Ref 6 [39] Press-releasse. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 7 [40] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 8 [41] Interview. Fails WP:ORGIND
  • Ref 9 [42] Comes from a press-release. Same news in multiple locations. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 10 [43] Monied raised. Fail WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Ref 11 [sdcera.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=328&meta_id=36781] PDF. FountainVest Introduction, SDCERA Board Meeting. Fails WP:SIRS. Not independent.
  • Ref 12 [44] Press-release. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 13 [45] Company deal. Not idependent. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 14 Same press-release as ref 13

There is not a single genuine source that confirms that the comany is notable. It fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. All the coverage is generated from company news sources, the founder and the a conference, as with any other small private company. scope_creep Talk 19:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Small private company? FountainVest was involved in the largest company buyout in Chinese history and co-owns three to four major and very well known sports companies that also have their own article. I believe you can watch any World Cup Skiing race and you will see their skis in the very vast majority of events if not all. They have Salomon AND Atomic. The current champion of the Ski World Cup Marco Odermatt uses Salomon shoes. And you can walk into any better sports wear store and you'll see their Arc'terix clothes. At least where I live, you see them all over and it is the well established class who wear such clothes.
And then you can watch any professional tennis tournament and you will see their rackets.
On the sources, of which you withhold their names... .we have
Wall Street Journal, on the establishment of its first fund of ca. 1 Bio.
Reuters (FountainVest declined to comment),
Reuters, (you call it interview, I call it notability, why does the founder get interviewed?),
South China Morning Post on the largest company buyout in Chinese history, which was Focus Media
FinanceAsia (no interview),
Bloomberg News (Paywall, but Bloomberg News) on the purchase of Papa John's China branch ( Non-paywall link)
South China Morning Post On the eventual IPO of the sports companies Arc'Terix Atomic, Wilson etc.
Thats just some, in the references are more. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 01:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm not so sure about this analysis. Ref 3 (the Reuters piece) says "FountainVest declined to comment" – you're saying they declined to comment in their own press release? — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 03:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply
A lot of that seems to be branding and advertising. How does that make the company notable, exactly? Companies advertise their products, that is what they do, to make profit. Society, modern civilization is soaked in advertisement and its never been cheaper in history to advertise on a global scale. Its very easy and cheap to do. I can't see how that is a criteria for being notable. When you look at these references, for example, taking the Bloomberg "FountainVest to Buy Papa John’s Pizza China Franchisee From EQT" It states in the headline "FountainVest to Buy Papa John’s Pizza China Franchisee From EQT". When you do a search on that term, it comes up in multiple locations, with the exact same text, indicating its a press-release from the company. Press-releases are the lingua franca of company's. So its not unique, some journalists doing the hard of going out and find the facts. Social media did for them in their business in big way from 2008 onwards, although paywalls are enabling real journalism to take place now, but not for this lazy way of reporting. On the WSJ one it is a similar outcome. Its a press-release. The WSJ that has been comprehensively debunked for showing it takes advertising dollar as much as anybody else. And it the same with all the rest. They are poor. Lastly, notability is not inherited. I may have made a mistake on size, for which I apologize for (I'll score it out), but there is nothing of real quality in the sources here. They're mostly generic second-hand information from the company news desk. scope_creep Talk 07:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Many of the sources are authored articles from perennial reliable sources not random press releases like from Reuters Staff or from the company itself. Then per the Establishing Notability linked by Imcdc below, FountainVest has way larger funds than 750 Million Dollars and closed its first around 1 Bio, and its fourth in 2022 at 2.9 Bio Dollars. It also holds by far more assets than the 1 Bio mentioned there. Besdie the aformentioned assests, it invested in 2009 in Sino, that launched Weibo the same year and which in 2017 overtook Twitter in market capitalization and by now is worth about 25 Bio. Dollars. FountainVests founder is Member of the Board at Weibo. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 10:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply
No they are not. The amount of money that organisation has hasn't been a criteria for notability since at least 2008. Your completly ignoring the type of references. Per WP:SIRS, they must be independent from the company. It is another debunked argument, that for example, if it comes from Reuters then its cast in platinum reliable. It is not and hasn't been for a long time. The quality of the references matter, where the information is coming from, whether or not its independent. If its coming from the company, then its not independent. A simple search shows the same. The same headlines appear in multiple locations, on multiple news sites, with the same wording, indicating its comes from the company and is not independent, failing WP:SIRS. scope_creep Talk 11:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply
How are they not authored.
The Wall Street Journal is authored, by Nisha Gopalan and Ellen Sheng
The Wall Street Journal again by John Stoll on the purchase of the Auo Industry supplier Key Safety Systems
The first Reuters in authored by Kane Wu
The second an interview by George Chen
The Bllomberg news on the Papa Johns China branch purchase by Vinicy Chan und Cathy Chan
The Finacial Times on the largest buy out in Chinese history by Josh Noble
Variety by Patrick Fraser in 2022
The Hollywood Reporter by Rebecca Sun in 2016
The New York Times by Neil Gough on the Sale of Focus Media for 7.4 Bio.
On that next one I am not sure if they are a perennial reliable source. But the Financial Review and three authors seems a fairly researched.
The Australien Finance Review on a purchase and eventual IPO of the Australian Loscam has even three authors, Anthony Macdonald, Sarah Thompson and Kanika Sood.
Every each one is written by authors of agency, outlet known to be independent to FVP. If FVP bought shares of any of those it can be mentioned in Perennial sources as it is done in the case the South China Morning Post which is owned by Alibaba Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 16:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply
It seems you have not responded to my point about ref 3, which does not seem to be a press release as far as I can tell. I've also checked the second ref you labeled as a press release (ref 6) and cannot find any evidence that it's a press release either. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 02:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Here are three of the sources discussed by Paradise Chronicle that establish notability:
    1. Wu, Kane (2020-12-17). Feast, Lincoln (ed.). "China's FountainVest reaches first-close in new private equity fund - source". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2023-07-02.

      The article notes: "Founded in 2007, FountainVest has been an avid investor in China’s media and entertainment, sports and consumer-related sectors. In June, it led a $750 million fundraising of online tutoring startup Zuoyebang as the COVID-19 crisis spurs investor interest in education technology. In 2018, the firm teamed up with China’s ANTA Sports and internet giant Tencent Holdings to buy Finland’s Amer Sports, which owns a range of sports brands including Wilson and Arc’teryx, for $5.2 billion."

    2. Rovnick, Naomi (2011-06-11). "Picking China's next winners". South China Morning Post. EBSCOhost  875105615. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2023-07-02.

      The article notes: "Frank Tang, chief executive of FountainVest Partners, a US$1 billion Hong Kong-based private equity fund, has bet the farm on China making its long-heralded transformation from the world's workshop into a consumer-driven economy. Tang founded FountainVest Partners in 2007 with a group of former colleagues at Singapore's sovereign-wealth fund Temasek Holdings, which was an anchor shareholder. Today, FountainVest Partners holds stakes in nine mainland companies, most of which Tang believes will profit from Beijing's plan to retool the economy."

    3. Gopalan, Nisha; Sheng, Ellen (2008-11-14). "FountainVest launches China fund". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2023-07-02.

      The article notes: "FountainVest Partners raised around $950 million for its first fund, a China-focused private-equity fund, despite the turmoil in financial markets. In addition to Singapore's state-owned investment company, Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd., FountainVest's backers include the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan and other investors from Asia, Europe and North America."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow FountainVest Partners ( traditional Chinese: 方源資本; simplified Chinese: 方源资本) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 05:17, 2 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! 06:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Verition Fund Management

Verition Fund Management (  | talk | history | 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:NCORP. References are routine business news. scope_creep Talk 05:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Ref 1: [46] Signs office lease. WP:PRIMARY Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent.
  • Ref 2 Form ADV" (PDF). SEC. Company docs. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 3 Moves its office. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent. Routine coverage.
  • Ref 4 [47] Press-release as its in multiple locations. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 5 [48] Hiring news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH routine coverage.
  • Ref 6 [49] WSJ article. About the last company. Not in-depth. Single paragraph. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 7 [50] Opening a new office. Fails [[WP:SIRS] Routine news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  • Ref 8 [51] hiring news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

These are the most routine news I've seen in a long time for supposed references. Hiring news, new offices, previous company and company docs. Not a single WP:SECONDARY sources that satisfies WP:NCORP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 20:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Let'srun ( talk) 23:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Cornish artists, architects and craftspeople

List of Cornish artists, architects and craftspeople (  | talk | history | 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:NLIST. Also, architects? Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Also List of Cornish philanthropists and List of Cornish geologists and explorers are sparsely populated. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete because categories exist and this is a glorified category. Dronebogus ( talk) 18:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Also, architects are indeed artists, who are responsible for designing buildings. Builders and engineers actually construct them and deal with practical stuff. Dronebogus ( talk) 18:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • That's your personal interpretation. Few people would consider architects to be artists (except for the Frank Lloyd Wrights of this world), so there are no lists with such an unusual agglomeration. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I know I'll get flak for this but this article has existed for 14 years, I'd like to see more policy-based reasons and support for deletion before hitting the Delete button.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Cornwall nowadays is just a region at the southwest corner of England. Briefly skim our constitutional status of Cornwall article for an overview why administratively it's been just another part of England for centuries and how the Cornish language faded from common usage in the 18th century. Attempts to gain autonomy for Cornwall like Scotland or Wales have fizzled due to lack of local support.
We don't have lists like this for other regions or counties of England and there's no reason to believe a Cornish geologist, philanthropist or architect is going to be different from their other English counterparts. The list serves no purpose.
In short, this list fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:CROSSCAT. In other words, Wikipedia is not "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". (Technically, this is a list, not a category but the notability discussion at WP:LISTN references WP:CROSSCAT and suggests the same rationale for deleting similar lists.)
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 04:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Athang

Athang (  | talk | history | 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, with one source being from IMDb (considered unreliable) and the other a blog. A draftification was contested. There are a few sources online, and I am personally unsure about whether or not the sources meet SIGCOV. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 05:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:59, 18 June 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! 04:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. If this were a film it'd only need "2 reviews" to pass ( WP:NFILM), but since it is a web show it will need 3 WP:GNG sources. I read the 4 sources mentioned in this AFD. The first source looks good, I think that passes GNG. The other 3 sources aren't great. 2 and 3 contain a lot of quotes so probably aren't independent. 4 is a bit too positive, could be based on a press release, so not independent. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 16:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Galen Tipton

Galen Tipton (  | talk | history | 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 musician. Sourcing is a list of performances and a biographical article. Gsearch only goes straight to streaming media sites. Has not had any charted singles or won major awards. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

" On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source." I believe the Pitchfork Review covers this. I can add more sources Carolina Heart ( talk) 04:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I have just found another citation from Tiny Mix Tapes which is another reputable music publication Carolina Heart ( talk) 04:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Found another from Alternative Press Carolina Heart ( talk) 04:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Found another citation from Mixmag Carolina Heart ( talk) 00:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Found another citation from Paper Magazine and inclusion in a list from The Guardian Carolina Heart ( talk) 01:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep I believe I've provided enough sources from established publications to pass notability. Majority of publication sources are notable enough that they have their own pages of decent length Carolina Heart ( talk) 16:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Pitchfork, Alt Press and other sources seem enough to establish notability. Rab V ( talk) 15:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the sources presented above…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:59, 18 June 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! 04:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Using WP:RSMUSIC to narrow to reliable sources, and excluding all interviews to keep independence there seem to be at least 2 sources the above discussion helped unearth for WP:GNG:
    • Tiny Mix Tapes [56] [57] [58] [59] - independent, reliable, sigcov (multiple reviews from multiple authors, some discussing artist's style in depth, and work in depth)
    • Pitchfork [60] - independent, reliable, sigcov (discusses subject beyond work, and work in depth)
I stopped after finding 2, there may be more. There are also several interviews that are not independent but are otherwise reliable/sigcov
— siro χ o 05:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: Sources are available to pass WP:Sigcov. Maliner ( talk) 06:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to create a Redirect to an appropriate article (no target page mentioned here). Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Wenche-Lin Hess

Wenche-Lin Hess (  | talk | history | 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, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I added an article about her return to competition in 2019. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Zero independent sources containing SIGCOV. The newest source is just a couple passing mentions in an article about her partner's return to sport. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:20, 18 June 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! 04:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. but I'm hoping that these new sources mentioned in this AFD discussion can find their way into the article now. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Bandhu Singh

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

On Google search i found just two newspaper sources and that too talks about a single event of his death, definitely no important role. WP:ONEEVENT is applicable. Only source, used in article also have passing reference and nothing more about his biography is available in secondary sources. Hence it fails WP:GNG. Admantine123 ( talk) 03:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Admantine123 ( talk) 03:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This article needs some love, but subject seems to meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Here's some reliable sigcov [61]. Here's a book with some coverage [62]. These together may help [63] [64]. There may also be a language divide here, these sources may not be reliable but point us in a direction: [65] [66] — siro χ o 04:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based on the sourcing provided by Siroxo - it's a bit light but it suggests a proper article can be written.
SportingFlyer T· C 09:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn‎ ( non-admin closure) – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ☖ 17:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Miranda Sings

Miranda Sings (  | talk | history | 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 not separately notable from Colleen Ballinger. While the article is well referenced with reliable sources, these references do not demonstrate separate notability of the character from the performer. Given that this article is in fact longer than the article about Mrs. Ballinger herself, I propose that some content from this article should be merged into that article. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Withdraw Clearly going nowhere. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, United States of America, and Fictional elements. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge – already enough overlap with Colleen Ballinger that WP:SPINOUT does not apply. small jars t c 03:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. This AfD may have a bit of unintentional recency bias, as an apparent recent controversy may have obscured the fact that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG/ WP:WEBCRIT on its own. Note that many of the cited articles are about the character with only a passing reference to the performer's name, eg [67], or making clear a distinction of the character from the performer, eg [68]. Even if it wasn't notable on its own, it's an WP:OKFORK by content and length, (Overlap excluded, articles together are above 6000 words which would be the disqualifier), and also noting that this article predates the article on the performer. — siro χ o 04:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep. The character is independently notable, separate from its creator. It is the subject of thousands of YouTube videos, its own Netflix series and there are hundreds of WP:Reliable sources about the character rather than the creator. Compare Dame Edna Everage and Barry Humphries. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    • (Note:Ssilvers is responsible for most of the content on both articles) This is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. We don't have a separate article for Lily Savage for instance. Miranda Sings is her only notable persona, and her fame is deeply intertwined to the character, to a greater degree than Barry Humphries was to Everage. It makes sense to cover both topics in a single lengthy article. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. We have numerous other articles about comic characters ( Alan Partridge from Steve Coogan, Mr Bean from Rowan Atkinson, Pee-wee Herman from Paul Reubens - the list goes on and on). The character passes GNG, and there is enough distance between character and creator to keep them separate. - SchroCat ( talk) 07:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Independently notable apart from its creator. As said above, there are many instances where a fictional character has its own article independent of its creator. Jack1956 ( talk) 07:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Genuinely surprised to see this nomination. I can't see any advantage to our readers in merging with the Ballinger article. Mentions above of the separate (and welcome) articles for the characters and creators of Dame Edna Everage and Mr Bean are very much ad rem in my view. Tim riley talk 16:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

IBC Balita Ngayon

AfDs for this article:
IBC Balita Ngayon (  | talk | history | 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'm unable to find GNG-level sources for this news show. Recommend Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 02:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ananda Shipyard & Slipways Limited

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

WP:ORGCRITE states that, A notable company should follow WP:GNG, but this company's page doesn't meet this criterion. Deletion recommended. M.parvage ( talk) 11:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • 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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. Those reference appear to be based entirely on announcements/PR so they fail the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 16:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Take the article, Ship-builder eating away Meghna, it is highly critical of the company. What would make you say that it is based on announcements/PR? Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 16:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Being highly critical doesn't mean it meets the criteria for establishing notability. The article relies on information and quotes provided by the company and their executives for some details but in general, there is next to zero in-depth information *about* the company (as required per CORPDEPTH). Most of the article is critical of the activity along the foreshore and the lack of proper enforecement. In my view this reference falls short of NCORP criteria. HighKing ++ 17:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I note Highking has changed their !vote, relisting to consider sources presented by Worldbruce on 16 June.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Daniel's relisting rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Move to draft to provide opportunity for expansion and addition of sources. Right now I can't even tell from the article how old this company is. BD2412 T 03:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    • For what it's worth, the company is 40 years old. One can find in Abedin's 2007 article (and other places) that it was founded in 1983. That information was also in the Wikipedia article until it was gutted of verifiable information, with inadequate explanation, by a 9-edit wonder just eight edits before it was nominated for deletion. The article certainly needs work, but Articles for Deletion is not cleanup, and the place in which the article is most likely to be improved is mainspace. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 06:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - plenty of stuff if you look for it.
As Worldbruce noted above, there are financial scandal(s) not mentioned in the article. [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] Worldbruce also initiated this investigation:
Many thanks to @ Worldbruce
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 03:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Users may mess Ananda Group with Ananta Group PARVAGE talk! 04:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for clarifying this! Just to add to the confusion, it looks like there are two very different companies named Ananda Group: [74], [75]
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
By the way, all the links in my comment above are to articles definitely about this shipbuilding company and not a similarly named entity.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
One Ananda group is from Bangladesh and another one is Indian. But you rightly said that articles definitely about this shipbuilding company, a subsid of Bangladeshi Ananda group. PARVAGE talk! 05:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have expanded the article using mainly sources found in this discussion. The article had at some point been cut back to a stub and needed to be rebuilt, and I've tried to do that. It could use an infobox but I've done what I can.
Commenting editors identified a number of articles that substantially discuss the shipyard, including the ones on scandal reporting from @ Worldbruce like this [76], the TBSNews article [77] and the NDC Journal article [78]. I've also included some cites provided by @ Vinegarymass911. The article about the Meghna river is also substantial coverage, and although I recognize that questions were raised above about its independence there's plenty of independent reporting in the article as well.
My main goal was to raise this beyond a draftify candidate, since it should have been beyond peradventure that this company met notability requirements. Not everything made the cut. If the tagged editors want to have a look perhaps they can find a place for other cites they identified. Comment added by user:Oblivy at 9:52, 26 June 2023‎ Sig added by scope_creep Talk 10:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

NeST (Nepalese Society in Trondheim)

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

Not notable. Tagged as such since creation without improvement. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Nepal, and Norway. Shellwood ( talk) 05:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete, I added some more references but I couldn't find anything past mirror sites and promotional websites. Per nominator, not notable. FatalFit |  ✉ |  ✓  14:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • If consensus turns out to be that this should be kept then the article title should be changed to the non-abbreviated name. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete fails WP:NORG by the looks of it.- KH-1 ( talk) 05:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TV Mania. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Bored with Prozac and the Internet?

Bored with Prozac and the Internet? (  | talk | history | 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:NALBUM. The only source cited is the band's website. I couldn't find any secondary sources. JMB1980 ( talk) 00:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

[79] [80] [81] [82] [83] is everything I could find on the album (the last is a passing mention but might be worth having if this gets kept). Personally, I don't think this is enough and the article should be redirected, but if more coverage is uncovered then that could easily change. As for a redirect target, I think TV Mania is also lacking and should probably be merged into Duran Duran, but that's a whole other discussion and TV Mania is otherwise the most obvious and appropriate target. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 06:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Most of those sources are focused on the band rather than the album. Consequently, a merger or redirect would make more sense. JMB1980 ( talk) 06:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and merge. Currently it's borderline on WP:NALBUM/GNG. But, even if it turns out there's enough SIGCOV, the topic of TV Mania and this album are inextricably linked, and both articles would improve if handled as one. — siro χ o 07:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge: There is some coverage of the album ( [84] USA Today, [85] Mxdwn, [86] Rolling Stone interview) but if TV Mania's only release is this album, it seems reasonable to cover this in context of the TV Mania article per points 2, 3 and 4 of WP:MERGEREASON. As an aside for the TV Mania article, looking through Google Books and News shows plenty of coverage from Billboard, the above USA Today article and a few other promising sources.
Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Barbara Majeski

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal, Miami New Times, KT Network is paid/sponsored coverage. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified ( talk) 00:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete - so many low-quality references -- do 10 ten-percent refs add up to one good 100% ref?? I spent a lot of time looking at them and looking for more.
I am familiar with the local Princeton, NJ publications. They are reliable but so very locally-focused that I hesitate to consider them.
This person is working hard to become famous for being famous and has almost made it.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 01:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Television, Internet, and New Jersey. Skynxnex ( talk) 05:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No independent & reliable sources in article (all coverage is paid or interviews or both), no luck on google. Beyond notes in nom, note that SFGate link is also labeled sponsored and attributed to "Ascend Media". — siro χ o 07:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 16:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Analogue Bubblebath IV

Analogue Bubblebath IV (  | talk | history | 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 PRODDED by User:Donaldd23 with the rationale "Appears to fail WP:NALBUM", and redirected to another article by Explicit after the PROD expired. However an IP restored the content, claiming that WP:NALBUM doesn't apply to EPs (it does), and invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF. So now we have to come here. Mako001  (C)   (T)  🇺🇦 00:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Xclusive Yachts

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

Routine coverage, KT Network of Khaleej Times is a paid article. Fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified ( talk) 00:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

How to Day Trade for a Living

How to Day Trade for a Living (  | talk | history | 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 coverage; no independent reviews of this book found. Fails WP:NBOOK. US-Verified ( talk) 00:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep thanks for the ping, Wikipedia:Notability (books) requires tow independent sources which Investopedia and Business Insider are not paid. Singularitywiki ( talk) 00:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Singularitywiki - see Reliable sources/Perennial sources (a.k.a. " WP:RSP" -- it's a useful list especially when working with marginally notable articles may rely on iffier sources. Investopedia is listed as a bad source; it even gets its own Wikipedia shortcut: WP:INVESTOPEDIA.
I've seen Business Insider on my newsfeed and I've wondered about it. For this AfC, I started researching its reliability. Business Insider is listed at WP:RSP as "Insider" (the parent company), not "Business Insider"; it also gets its own shortcut: WP:BUSINESSINSIDER. It's been the subject of 2 lengthy RfCs which closed with no consensus:
and 11 other discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard - possibly a record. It's generally viewed as iffy and inconsistent.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 02:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: the author's bio is listed at Articles for deletion/Andrew Aziz
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 02:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
BI "license to print money" No interview with author ~ WP:BI No doesn't even mention this book, just links to amazon ✘ No
bi books Yes ~ ~ barebones, most significant note is "Aziz explains how day trading works, how to choose stocks, how to choose a day trading platform, and more." rest is less detailed repetition ~ Partial
investopedia classes ? No No doesn't mention book ✘ No
yahoo gobankingrates ? No gobankingrates No small amount of data about ratings and rankings of book ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
  • Delete per siroxo's detailed source analysis above. I think that it is clear that the referencing except Insider are clearly not SIGCOV. For Business Insider, whether it is a WP:RS in this circumstance is complicated- the RSP section notes that There is no consensus on the reliability of Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also: Insider (culture). This is a case that falls under finance instead of culture sections, so the reliability is iffy (I will disclaim that in the latest RfC a year ago, which is specifically for news reporting, I voted option 1/2). Moreover, I do no think that it meets SIGCOV per GNG or constitute as a full-length review per WP:NBOOK#1, as the content is very short at 130 words and part of a listicle. Overall, because there are reliability and SIGCOV concerns with Insider, the current sourcing very weak, even if one generously assumes it counts, that is still only one source. Unfortunately, my search on Google and other reviewing websites (Kirkus, PW, and Booklist) failed to find suitable sources and only unreliable ones like this. As other NBOOK criteria are also not met, I am at a delete. VickKiang (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Like VickKiang, I checked the usual places, found nothing. -- asilvering ( talk) 23:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Andrew Aziz (trader)

Andrew Aziz (trader) (  | talk | history | 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 coverage in Forbes Councils, KT Network of Khaleej Times. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified ( talk) 00:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep I removed KT and Forbes (was a profile page, not a paid source really), and added few recent rs. Should meet Wikipedia:NAUTHOR, having two independent rs. Thanks for the ping. Singularitywiki ( talk) 00:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: - one of the author's books is listed at Articles for deletion/How to Day Trade for a Living
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 02:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
business insider bio ~ largely interview ~ WP:BI Yes ~ Partial
[87] marketwatch Yes Yes No very little about subject, it's about trading ✘ No
himalayan times ~ quote attributed to subject's expedition leader, photo credited to subject Yes Yes ~ Partial
style.yahoo No No gobankingrates ~ ✘ No
business insider books Yes ~ WP:BI No snippet about a book ✘ No
yahoo finance money experts No interview No gobankingrates ~ ✘ No
Investopedia coursees ? ~ No about course ✘ No
yahoo finance day trading via benzinga ~ mostly quote ? No not ABOUT subject ✘ No
gobankingrates 100 ? No gobankingrates ~ ✘ No
gobankingrates 100 at yahoo ? No gobankingrates ~ ✘ No
business insider Career tips ~ references other BI article ~ No ✘ No
gobankingrates 3 things ? No Yes ✘ No
Money Times No mostly interview Yes ~ mostly interview ✘ No
SSRN paper No by subject ? ? ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
  • Delete per siroxo's fantastic source assessment table. I don't count interviews towards SIGCOV, so the Himalayan Times and Business insider bio sources fail in my books. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 10:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete thanks to Siroxo's source examination. -- SouthernNights ( talk) 12:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Bethany Convent School, Prayagraj

Bethany Convent School, Prayagraj (  | talk | history | 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 and WP:ORG, with all sources being related to the school. There was an AfD discussion in 2013, which closed as keep, before the RfC on secondary schools that reached a consensus that they are not inherently notable. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 00:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Linkme

Linkme (  | talk | history | 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 coverage (guest posts) in LA Weekly, KT Network of Khaleej Times, Vents, BI Africa, US Weekly. Fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified ( talk) 00:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Florida. Skynxnex ( talk) 05:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I read about 10 sources, and they all have problems. Some are way too positive and hypey, some are just flat out a sales pitch, and some are quite obviously written by a "guest contributor" or say things like "The content featured in this article is brand produced.". Unable to find any independent content, so appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_June_25&oldid=1163095374"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE