Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 20 March 22 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. based on newly located sources but it seems to be a Weak Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Zhengzhou No.47 Middle School

Zhengzhou No.47 Middle School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find anything notable online about the school (which has 7000 students and 500 staff). Most online articles repeat the existing Wikipedia wording which reads like an advertisement. The only exception I can find is Deloitte - who say the school offers classes to international students ( https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/at/Documents/Tax/Chinese%20Services%20Group/kr_cbc_investment_henan-zhengzhou_en_201612.pdf) Newhaven lad ( talk) 17:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:

    All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

    Sources
    1. "叶小耀：郑州47中的发展是郑州教育史上的奇迹" [Ye Xiaoyao: The development of Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School is a miracle in the history of education in Zhengzhou]. China Daily (in Chinese). 2016-05-27. Archived from the original on 2024-03-09. Retrieved 2024-03-09.

      The article notes: "郑州市第47中学（下称郑州47中），一所只有20年历史的学校。每年都有毕业生成功考入清华、北大、浙大等名牌大学，连续多年高考国家级宏志班一本上线率达到100%，2013-2016年连续四届国际班毕业生全部被世界500强名校录取。2015年，郑州47中获得了河南省“十大最具国际特色学校”荣誉称号，2016年被评为河南省唯一一家国际教育类“河南教育名片”。"

      From Google Translate: "Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School (hereinafter referred to as Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School) is a school with a history of only 20 years. Every year, graduates are successfully admitted to prestigious universities such as Tsinghua University, Peking University, and Zhejiang University. For many years, the admission rate of the national-level Hongzhi class in the college entrance examination has reached 100%. From 2013 to 2016, all graduates of the four consecutive international classes were admitted to the world's top 500 universities. In 2015, Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School won the honorary title of "Top Ten Most International Schools" in Henan Province. In 2016, it was named the only international education "Henan Education Business Card" in Henan Province."

    2. Tan, Ping 谭萍 (2022-10-10). "优质教育资源扩容！郑州市第四十七初级中学（东校区）正式揭牌" [Expansion of high-quality educational resources! Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School (East Campus) was officially unveiled]. Dahe Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-03-09. Retrieved 2024-03-09.

      The article notes: "郑州市第四十七初级中学1996年建校，先后被授予“全国文明单位”“全国文明校园”“全国国防教育示范学校”“郑州市首批新优质初中”等国家省市级荣誉百余项，连续20年荣评“郑州市教学创新先进单位”。此次优质教育资源的扩容，将推进优质教育更加均衡。"

      From Google Translate: "Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School was established in 1996. It has been awarded more than 100 national, provincial and municipal honors such as "National Civilized Unit", "National Civilized Campus", "National Defense Education Demonstration School", "Zhengzhou City's First Batch New High-Quality Junior High School", etc. Xiang has been rated as "Zhengzhou Advanced Unit for Teaching Innovation" for 20 consecutive years. This expansion of high-quality educational resources will promote a more balanced high-quality education."

      The article notes: "大河报·豫视频记者现场了解到，郑州市第四十七初级中学（东校区）位于金水区杨金路街道。... 郑州市第四十七初级中学（东校区）在建项目工程计划将于2023年5月经过验收，2023年9月投入使用。该校区占地40余亩，建筑面积60000平方米，可满足48教学班的正常使用。"

      From Google Translate: "Dahe News·Yu Video reporter learned on the spot that Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School (East Campus) is located in Yangjin Road Street, Jinshui District. ... The project under construction in the middle school (East Campus) is scheduled to be inspected and accepted in May 2023 and put into use in September 2023. The campus covers an area of ​​more than 40 acres, with a construction area of ​​60,000 square meters, which can meet the normal use of 48 teaching classes."

    3. Wang, Guoyong 王国勇 (2023-10-25). Zhao, Na 赵娜 (ed.). "郑州市第四十七初级中学校长夏霞：把铿锵誓言照进现实" [Xia Xia, principal of No. 47 Junior High School in Zhengzhou City: Turning the sonorous oath into reality]. 祖国 [Motherland] (in Chinese). China Economic Media Association. Archived from the original on 2024-03-09. Retrieved 2024-03-09.

      The article notes: "1996年大学毕业后，被分配到郑州市第四十七中学，成为这所新建校的第一批教师。从筚路蓝缕的艰难创业到成为有广泛影响力的全国文明校园，夏霞见证了这所学校迭代升级的每一步，她也从一名教师成长为中层干部、副校长、专职副书记到分级管理后郑州市第四十七初级中学的校长。"

      From Google Translate: "After graduating from university in 1996, he was assigned to Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School and became the first batch of teachers in this new school. From a difficult start-up to becoming a nationally civilized campus with widespread influence, Xia Xia has witnessed every step of the school's iterative upgrades. She has also grown from a teacher to a middle-level cadre, vice-principal, full-time deputy secretary to a post-graduation management The principal of Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School."

      The article notes: "8月27日，郑州市第四十七初级中学东校区迎来了首批1000余名学子，为了保证新校区开学平稳有序，夏霞整整两周没有回家，吃住在校、时刻守护。"

      From Google Translate: "On August 27, the East Campus of No. 47 Junior High School in Zhengzhou welcomed the first batch of more than 1,000 students. In order to ensure the smooth and orderly opening of the new campus, Xia Xia did not go home for two whole weeks, living and eating in school and guarding her at all times."

    4. Xu, Hongli 许红丽; Zhao, Demin 赵德民 (2019-12-18). "法制安全知识进校园郑州市第四十七初级中学举行法制安全教育讲座" [Legal safety knowledge enters the campus. Zhengzhou City No. 47 Junior High School held a legal safety education lecture] (in Chinese). China Internet Information Center. Archived from the original on 2024-03-09. Retrieved 2024-03-09.

      The article notes: "据悉，郑州市第四十七初级中学除积极开展讲座外，还进一步完善了校园欺凌及校园突发事件处置的处理制度、措施，建立了校园欺凌事件、校园突发事件处置应急处理预案，明确了相关岗位教职工预防和职责。"

      From Google Translate: "It is reported that in addition to actively conducting lectures, Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School has further improved the system and measures for handling campus bullying and campus emergencies , established an emergency response plan for campus bullying and campus emergencies , and clearly stated The prevention and responsibilities of faculty and staff in relevant positions have been clarified. "

    5. Guo, Xinyue 郭昕玥 (2023-06-19). "鄭州市第四十七初級中學東校區今秋將正式招生" [Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior Middle School East Campus will officially enroll students this fall]. Hong Kong Commercial Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-03-09. Retrieved 2024-03-09.

      The article notes: "6月19日，記者從鄭州市第四十七初級中學獲悉，鄭州市第四十七初級中學東校區（以下簡稱東校區）將在2023年秋季學期正式投入使用，新七年級計劃招收8個班。"

      From Google Translate: "On June 19, reporters learned from Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School that the East Campus of Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School (hereinafter referred to as the East Campus) will be officially put into use in the fall semester of 2023. The new seventh grade students are planned to enroll 8 classes."

    6. Zhang, Kedan 张可丹 (2003-07-05). "郑州市 10所 高中戴上"示范帽"" [10 high schools in Zhengzhou awarded "demonstration model" status]. Dahe Daily (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "本报讯由郑州市政府教育督导室组织，各社区代表、学生家长代表参与，经过近半年时间的开放式评估，郑州市首批１０所示范性高中昨天脱颖而出。 据了解，从２００２年９月２５日起到今年６月１８日止，１０所示范性高中经过了开放性的评估方式，"

      From Google Translate: "This report was organized by the Education Supervision Office of the Zhengzhou Municipal Government, with the participation of community representatives and student parent representatives. After nearly half a year of open evaluation, the first batch of 10 demonstration model high schools in Zhengzhou stood out yesterday. It is understood that from 25 September 2002 to 18 June this year, 10 model high schools passed an open evaluation method."

      The article notes: "这１０所示范性高中分别为：... 郑州市第四十七中学(高 中部) ..."

      From Google Translate: "These 10 demonstration model high schools are: ... Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School (High School Division) ..."

    7. Zhang, Kedan 张可丹; Zhang, Qiaofu 张乔甫 (2004-03-30). "逃生演练 该跳楼时就跳楼" [Escape drill: jump when it’s time to jump]. Dahe Daily (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "本报讯昨天上午9时15分，郑州市第四十七中学高中部的警报突然拉响，教学楼内外迅速弥漫起滚滚浓烟。三楼6名被困在阳台上的学生，在消防官兵的指挥下，纵身从10米高处跃向 地上的气垫(右图 )… …这是昨天该校在全国中小学安全教育日组织的一场大型逃生演练，200多名学生分别采用不同的方式安全逃离了“危险地带”。"

      From Google Translate: "This newspaper reported that at 9:15 a.m. yesterday, the alarm in the high school section of Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School suddenly sounded, and thick smoke quickly filled the inside and outside of the teaching building. Six students trapped on the balcony on the third floor, under the command of fire officers and soldiers, jumped from a height of 10 meters to an air mattress on the ground (picture on the right)... This was organized by the school yesterday on the National Primary and Secondary School Safety Education Day In a large-scale escape drill, more than 200 students used different methods to escape the "danger zone" safely."

    8. "国际教育实验班进驻郑州高中 中学校园出现留学 "预备军"" [International education experimental class is stationed in Zhengzhou high school, and a "preparatory army" for studying abroad appears on the middle school campus]. Dahe Daily (in Chinese). 2004-05-25.

      The article notes: "与此同时，郑州市第四十七中学也已通过中国教育国际交流协会，与新西兰国立西方理工学院签订协议，成立中国与新西兰友好实验班，并已在郑州市教育局备案，计划于2004年招收首批计划内学生。"

      From Google Translate: "At the same time, Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School has also signed an agreement with the National Western Institute of Technology of New Zealand through the China Education International Exchange Association to establish a China-New Zealand friendship experimental class. It has been registered with the Zhengzhou Municipal Education Bureau and is planned to be launched in 2004 after recruiting the first batch of planned students."

    9. "宏志班里的碰撞与成长" [Collision and growth in provincial class]. Dahe Daily (in Chinese). 2004-06-01.

      The article notes: "去年9月开学后，郑州市第四十七中、省实验中学等全省5所高中，开办了第一批省级宏志班。根据省教育厅的批准，共有150名来自全省各地贫困地区、家庭贫困却品学兼优的学生，走进了郑州市的两所高中。"

      From Google Translate: "After the start of school in September last year, five high schools in the province, including Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School and Provincial Experimental Middle School, opened the first batch of provincial ambition classes."

      The article notes: "在郑州市第四十七中，学生刚进校时，学校了解到，几乎所有的宏志生在英语和计算机两科上，学习起来都非常吃力，而四十七中的不少城市学生却又有着城里独生子女的骄横等通病。"

      From Google Translate: "In Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School, when the students first entered the school, the school learned that almost all Hongzhi students had difficulty learning in English and computer subjects, while many urban students in No. 7 Middle School had difficulty learning. He has the arrogance and arrogance common among only children in the city."

      The article notes: "五一期间，郑州市第四十七中的老师到了全省多个贫困县乡进行考察。在那里，他们看到了更多家庭贫困的学生。"

      From Google Translate: "During the May Day period, teachers from Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School visited many impoverished counties and villages across the province for inspections. There, they saw more students from poor families."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School ( simplified Chinese: 郑州市第四十七中学; traditional Chinese: 鄭州市第四十七中學) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 11:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the sources found by User:Cunard. I'm puzzled by User:Bearian's comment – we have articles about many other secondary schools, and the fact that this is a secondary school doesn't seem like a reason for deleting the article. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 07:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Probably delete - I accept that the notability of schools is still a contested area and we still need clarity on how we are making AfD decisions. However following this RfC the consensus is that secondary schools need to show they meet the same notability standards as other organisations. Simply WP:ROUTINE coverage and regurgitated press releases are not enough. Cunard has supplied a blizzard of such sources in their usual way (I'm not criticising, having sources to discuss at AfD is better than no sources) but in my opinion these are simply statements that all schools everywhere aim to get in local newspaper coverage. I appreciate it is an example of systematic bias, but unless we see significant and independent coverage in a reliable source (which as far as I'm concerned essentially means pages in a book or a long press article) I'm !voting delete. JMWt ( talk) 09:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:NSCHOOL only requires GNG for public schools, and Cunards sources are sufficient to meet that bar. Jumpytoo Talk 19:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Weak keep per sources provided by Cunard, but also taking into account JMWt's arguments. S5A-0043 Talk 05:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Looking at those sources, they are all primary, aren't they? Do we have any secondary sourcing? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 14:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says that primary sources are "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved". I do not consider these newspaper articles to be "close to an event" or "written by people who are directly involved". They are secondary sources that rely on primary sources in discussing the school's history and background. Cunard ( talk) 01:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, anyone want to take on evaluating the newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: JMWt's statement that "secondary schools need to show they meet the same notability standards as other organisations" is an inaccurate reading of the guideline. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools says:

    All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

    The guideline says that for non-profit schools like Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School, passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline is sufficient. There is no need for the school to also pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria.

    JMWt's statement that schools have to receive "pages in a book or a long press article" is a much higher bar than what the guideline requires and is contradicted by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which defines significant coverage like this:

    "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

    Bearian wrote, " One of thousands of similar schools. Fails GNG." This comment fails to explain why the school "fails GNG". That this school is like "one of thousands of similar schools" is not a policy-based reason for deletion. And calling this school run-of-the-mill is false because the school was designated an exemplar senior high school [ zh in July 2003. From this book published by Springer Nature (which is licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/):

    Thus, the Chinese government had to develop a project of Key High School that classified a part of schools as key schools while others as ordinary schools in order to concentrate limited resources on quality assurance in key schools. In 1953, 194 high schools of the country were named as Key High Schools. 194 schools were a very small portion (4.4%) of the large number of high schools in China (Li, 2003, p. 276). According to related policy, the Key High Schools were given priority in funding, human resource, school facilities, and selection of students. By extraordinary input, the Key High Schools had constantly improved the quality of their teaching and learning and prepared a number of excellent graduates for the country since then (Feng, 2007). Historically, the project of Key High School made a great contribution to prepare quality graduates of senior high schools for China's universities and colleges as well as for the country's industry and agriculture by concentrating limited resources during 1950s and 1960s. However, with the increasing demand for senior high school education in the early 1990s, the issue of expanding the scale of senior high school education was put on the agenda of Chinese government. The State Council called on building up 1000 high quality senior high schools throughout the country in its RHD in 1994, Opinions of State Council on carrying out "Compendium for China's educational reform and development (State Council, 1994). In this RHD, the old name Key High School was replaced by a new name Exemplar Senior High School (hereafter called "ESHS").

    Cunard ( talk) 01:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Out of the 9 sources put up by Cunard above, 5 are from Dahe Daily, which amounts to a single source i.e. same publisher. Of the others, source 1 is brief but OK. Source 3 is about a teacher; the school is only mentioned. Sources 4 & 5 look like reports on press releases put out by the school — doubtful independence and no editorial analysis or commentary. Basically, there's coverage of the school in Dahe Daily and source 1, but this doesn't satisfy the multiple, independent requirement of GNG; multiple meaning 3 or more independent reliable sources. Rupples ( talk) 02:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected."

      "multiple meaning 3 or more independent reliable sources" is inaccurate. wikt:multiple says: "More than one". Merriam-Webster says, "consisting of, including, or involving more than one". Cambridge Dictionary says, "having more than one and usually several of something".

      I consider sources 4 and 5 to be sufficiently independent to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which says:

      "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

      The sources are bylined and are not "works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". Source 4 contains the reporter's observations of a school lecture, while source 5 contains the journalist's reporting on the new East Campus expansion. Editors could try to make the argument that sources 4 and 5 do not meet the "intellectual independence" requirement of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources, but Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline has no such requirement. As a non-profit school, Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School needs to meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

      Cunard ( talk) 04:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

      I acknowledge your explanation over how you see the guidelines, but it is but one interpretation, albeit a valid one. "Multiple" could mean just two sources and could amount to satisfying significant coverage. I might agree with this if source 1 offered more indepth coverage than half a dozen short sentences on the school. I assess the sources to decide what content can be employed in writing an encyclopedic article and evaluate whether there's enough such material. I'm not seeing sufficient depth in the sources, so to my thinking the GNG is not satisfied. The only reason I've held back from !voting delete is because of uncertainty over whether the designation "exemplar high school" makes the school notable, when compared with the 15,000 or so other senior high schools in China. Rupples ( talk) 05:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Here are some additional sources about Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School:
    1. Zhang, Qin 张勤 (2010-05-28). "教学有法，但无定法，贵在得法。走进郑州四十七中感受特色新课改。近50名外籍教师带来国际化教育开设中澳、中美国际班" [There are methods for teaching, but there is no fixed method. The most important thing is to obtain the method. Enter Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School to experience the unique new curriculum reform. Nearly 50 foreign teachers bring international education and open Chinese-Australian and Chinese-American international classes]. Zhengzhou Evening News [ zh (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25.

      The article notes: "其中，中澳班是郑州四十七中和澳大利亚阿德雷德大学附属中学安斯伯利学院合作开办的，是进入世界500强大学的基地。采取中外教师同时授课的方式，并将根据学生的综合情况，定制四个留学方向：美国排名前50的大学、美国排名前100的大学、澳大利亚五星大学、澳大利亚四星大学。美高中双文凭国际班（简称中美班）是由四十七中和美国华盛顿州教育局附属中学合作的项目。采用中英双语教学的方式，让学生同时完成中国和美国高中课程的学习，并获得受到中国教育部和美国教育部认可的中国高中文凭和美国高中文凭。学生的最终升学目标是以美国为主的前100名大学，及加拿大、澳洲、英国等的世界名校。"

      From Google Translate: "Among them, the Chinese-Australian class is jointly run by Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School and Eynesbury College, a high school affiliated with the University of Adelaide in Australia. It is a base for entering the world's top 500 universities. Chinese and foreign teachers will teach at the same time, and four study abroad directions will be customized according to the comprehensive situation of the students: the top 50 universities in the United States, the top 100 universities in the United States, five-star universities in Australia, and four-star universities in Australia. The U.S. High School Dual Diploma International Class (referred to as the Chinese-American Class) is a cooperative project between No. 47 Middle School and the High School Affiliated to the Washington State Department of Education in the United States. Using Chinese-English bilingual teaching, students can complete Chinese and American high school courses at the same time, and obtain Chinese high school diplomas and American high school diplomas recognised by the Chinese Ministry of Education and the U.S. Ministry of Education. The students’ ultimate admission goal is the top 100 universities, mainly in the United States, as well as world-famous universities in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom."

    2. Zhu, Ruirui 朱瑞瑞; Yue, Changchang 岳常常 (2016). "网球训练对大学生体质健康影响的研究" [网球训练对大学生体质健康影响的研究]. 文体用品与科技 [Culture & Sports Utensils and Technology Journal] (in Chinese) (13). doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8902.2016.13.045. ISSN  1006-8902. Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25 – via Wanfang Data [ zh.

      The abstract notes: "采用文献资料法、实验法、数理统计法等研究方法，对郑州市第四十七中学高一网球选项班男生的体质健康指标进行测试、分析和研究，旨在探讨网球在高中体育课程中的开设对高中学生体质健康指标有何影响。结果表明高中学生通过网球课的锻炼，对体质健康指标有积极的促进作用，与传统的体育教学相比，高中网球选项课的开设，有助于激发高中学生的体育锻炼兴趣，对提升自身体质健康水平的效果明显。"

      From Google Translate: "Using literature methods, experimental methods, mathematical statistics and other research methods, the physical health indicators of the boys in the first-grade tennis optional class of Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School were tested, analyzed and studied, with the aim of exploring the role of tennis in high school physical education courses. What impact does the establishment of a middle school have on the physical health indicators of high school students. The results show that high school students’ exercise in tennis classes has a positive effect on physical health indicators. Compared with traditional physical education, the opening of high school tennis optional courses can help stimulate high school students’ interest in physical exercise and improve their physical fitness. The effect on health level is obvious."

    3. Bai, Jiong 白泂 (2006). "郑州市第四十七中学高中部建筑设计概述" [Overview of the architectural design of the high school section of Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School]. 四川建材 [Sichuan Building Materials] (in Chinese). 32 (3): 217–219. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-4011.2006.03.112. ISSN  1672-4011. Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25 – via Wanfang Data [ zh.

      The abstract notes: "郑州市47中是郑州市规模最大的一所公立现代化中学,建校6年.初、高中学生达4 500多人. 为适应发展的需求,拟在郑东新区新建优质高中部.校园占地258亩,建筑面积达8.7万多平方米,拥有完备的教学、实验、体育和生活设施以及富有人文气息的校园空间,实行寄宿制管理,为学生提供充足的学习时间及良好、舒适的生活条件."

      From Google Translate: "Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School is the largest public modern middle school in Zhengzhou City. It was established 6 years ago. There are more than 4,500 junior and senior high school students. In order to meet the needs of development, it is planned to build a new high-quality high school in Zhengdong New District. The campus covers an area of 258 acres, with a construction area of more than 87,000 square meters, has complete teaching, experimental, sports and living facilities as well as a campus space rich in humanistic atmosphere. It implements boarding management to provide students with sufficient study time and good and comfortable living conditions."

    Cunard ( talk) 08:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on additional 3 sources provided by Cunard. The first is helpful as it shows international links which may raise the school above 'run of the mill' criticism. The tennis one doesn't help with notability — it's the sort of 'research' I've seen with Indonesian schools on Google Scholar — as the report itself concludes "the effect on health is obvious". The third is useful, but again brief, if that's all there is. GNG coverage borderline, but there's suggestions the school is notable. Good work by Cunard finding all these sources. Rupples ( talk) 14:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you for reviewing the sources. The third source is three pages long, and the quote is from the abstract. Cunard ( talk) 06:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. It's unfortunate there's access restrictions on the architectural design of the school (source 3 Bai, Jiong ). It is 3 pages in length and appears to be focussed on the school. In my view when combined with the other sources there is now just about enough to take this over the line in respect of the significant coverage requirement of the GNG. Rupples ( talk) 13:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. as there is disagreement over whether the sources found are sufficient for establishing notability. I don't think a third relist would help us arrive at a consensus here so I'm closing this now. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Chawadee Nualkhair

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

Appears to be a non-notable individual due to the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sources primarily comprise passing mentions or interviews, which is also consistent with WP:BEFORE. Despite occasional appearances as a guest on TV shows, this alone does not establish notability. Additionally, the author appears to have a COI/UPE, considering their edit history. GSS  💬 16:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, such reviews don't give a free pass to notability no matter where they were published. Additionally, the other sources you mentioned are merely passing mentions and do not constitute the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. GSS  💬 20:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply
SouthernNights was making an argument under WP:AUTHOR #3, not the GNG. It says, ... Such a person is notable if: ... 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) -- Paul_012 ( talk) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply
To satisfy WP:AUTHOR#3, the book must pass WP:NBOOK, which is not the case here. Furthermore, looking at the disclaimer in the Foreword, it indicates that her book was not selected by them for review, but rather she sent her book and requested a review. The disclaimer reads: "Disclosure: This article is not an endorsement, but a review. The publisher of this book provided free copies of the book to have their book reviewed by a professional reviewer..." GSS  💬 04:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
For authors and other creative professionals, reviews are used along with overall media coverage to establish notability. And the language on the Foreword review doesn't change the fact that it is a review. Numerous publishers provide copies of books for review consideration. That is very different from a paid review or paying the reviewer. Foreword still selected the book for review. And you are absolutely wrong that to meet WP:AUTHOR#3 their books must pass WP:NBOOK. That has never been a notability guideline or requirement for any author or creative professional. SouthernNights ( talk) 13:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Also, with regards to your claim that the media coverage isn't "significant coverage," the basic criteria under notability states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." I believe that is what we have here with all the media coverage of this person as a street food expert. This author has been featured as a street food expert in a large number of media outlets and on some well-known TV shows. When that is combined with the reviews of her books, then notability is established. SouthernNights ( talk) 13:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Also, I'm not sure what you meant by "Current sources primarily comprise passing mentions or interviews, which is also consistent with WP:BEFORE." Did you perhaps mean to point to some other page? -- Paul_012 ( talk) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply
With the term 'current sources,' I am referring to the sources already present in the article. GSS  💬 04:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
But what does WP:BEFORE say about them? That's the art I don't understand. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 09:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I can't decide what my vote is, but GSS, what's your problem? Don't make this discussion problematic. Someone presented reliable independent sources, but you always say, in many Thai-related AfD discussions, in some way, that these are not reliable, passing them off as mentioned, not independent, and dismissing interview pieces, blah blah... etc, even these coverages are pretty fine. In my view, these sources are okay. Please stay cool and don't resort to WP:IDONTLIKE. Thanks 180.183.224.201 ( talk) 18:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • The sources:
    • this source published by a popular magazine is an interview so not independent. this is also an interview
    • this which is primary and written by subject.
  • I stopped here as I went deeper on Google, but no reliable sources were found. Since it fails notability guidelines, delete. Toadette ( Let's discuss together!) 07:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep: Multiple book reviews as given above, and this from New Zealand [1] and one from Indonesia [2], I think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I do not see any in-depth coverage about her in any reputable newspaper rather than self-authored articles, however there are some book reviews from reliable sources that may make her notable. Atighot ( talk) 22:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Pakistani provincial elections

2024 Pakistani provincial elections (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

IMO fails WP:STAND. Saqib ( talk) 11:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: Agree with nom, plus we have separate election articles for each provincial assembly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep It seems like a useful disambiguator to me? SportingFlyer T· C 16:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
We have Template:Pakistani general election, 2024. -- Saqib ( talk) 17:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
We also have functionally the same page at 2018 Pakistani provincial elections. SportingFlyer T· C 10:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It's a useful DAB article and something to point {{ Pakistani elections}} to. Number 5 7 09:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are 4 internal links in page, which are already in Template:Pakistani general election, 2024.-- Ameen Akbar ( talk) 17:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep–This article serves as a valuable disambiguator, given that every Pakistani provincial election has one. Moreover, it addresses the limitation of templates like {{ Pakistani elections}} not displaying on the mobile version. Ainty Painty ( talk) 05:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as a useful DAB page, per Number 57 and Ainty Painty. Sal2100 ( talk) 17:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. "It's useful" is an argument to be avoided in AFDLand.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

OpenSym

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

Previous AfD closed as no consensus due to zero participation. That does not change the fact that this is still almost entirely primary sourced navel gazing, and tagged as such since 2015 without improvement [with] no real evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 23:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No secondary sources by either current or previous name. ~ A412 talk! 15:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ LibStar ( talk) 23:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Miras International School Astana

Miras International School Astana (  | talk | history | 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 coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 23:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep These sources 1, 2, 3 give a fair coverage to the subject for notability Atighot ( talk) 23:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Steve Hoberman

Steve Hoberman (  | talk | history | 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 man has a job--but that job does not guarantee notability, and there is no secondary sourcing to provide notability via the GNG. He had an award, but that award does not confer notability. There was a spammy list of books (look in the history) but without secondary sources (reviews etc.), and Technics Publication seems like a fishy publishing outfit. Much of the remaining sourcing is on websites, resume-style material. The editor who denied the PROD mentioned WP:THREE but I don't even see ONE significant independent secondary source. Drmies ( talk) 21:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Some book seller listings, mostly PR items I find. I don't see notability with the sources given either. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Finance, Engineering, Technology, Computing, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Lecturers, at US universities, are unlikely to be notable through WP:PROF, because it is a title used for people hired to teach classes but not expected to have signicant scholarly achievements. (In UK-based systems, the meaning of the title is totally different, more like assistant professor in US terms.) Anyway, I didn't find evidence for academic notability or WP:AUTHOR based notability for the subject. I don't think the DAMA award is enough for WP:PROF#C2 and its award citation page doesn't provide enough depth to count as one of the multiple sources needed for WP:NBIO. I note that the article history includes accusations of undeclared paid editing but I don't know what the evidence for that might be; if it can be provided it might strengthen the case for deletion, but I think that case is clear enough already. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not really a case for WP:Prof here. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC). reply
  • Delete undisclosed paid-for spam. I PRODed this earlier but it was contested by another editor. There is no evidence of satisfying WP:GNG or WP:PROF. GSS  💬 04:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF. Qflib ( talk) 17:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I contested the PROD earlier here [3] with some reasons of excluding the primary sources and not sure whether the job, Data modelling instructor (or related) is notable or ever be. I can see it's not inclusive and not encyclopedic. Maybe WP:NPOV problem and SIGCOV. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 17:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as undisclosed paid spam per GSS. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 22:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Can you or GSS respond to requests that you provide evidence of being undisclosed paid editing rather than just throwing around evidence-free accusations, please? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ David Eppstein: they are solid and have already been shared with the functionaries. GSS  💬 05:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    So "delete because I have secret evidence that I'm not going to tell you"? I can understand the reasons for not publicizing the methods by which you might have discovered such behavior, but the price for not publicizing it is that it cannot be used as evidence in an open and evidence-based procedure such as AfD. See also The Trial. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    No, delete because there is no evidence satisfying notability criteria, as I mentioned in my !vote above. The reason for not publicly posting the details is that it contains personal information that could violate WP:OUTING. GSS  💬 06:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes, you provided a guideline-based deletion reason. Lepricavark didn't. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    A ping would have helped. The editor who created this article is currently pursuing the deletion of an article about a company created by Gurbaksh Chahal, an individual with an extensive history of using undisclosed paid editors to try to whitewash his own biography. There are numerous suspicious editors who have turned up at that AfD to support deletion, all of whom are parroting the same types of arguments that I recognize from prior involvement with Chahal's article. Based on all of this, I believe that the creator of this article is an undisclosed paid editor. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 15:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete can't find anything that suggests he is notable Devoke water 21:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Eschatology of artificial intelligence

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

This is an essay-like WP:SYNTH mixing Transhumanism, Posthumanism and Existential risk from artificial general intelligence. The term eschatology isn't mentioned in the most of the source, and given the mix of references there is no clear target (the 3 linked topics all being sufficiently well-developed and not needing the 6 references here). WP:Original Research. My searches don't find reliable sources supporting Eschatology of artificial intelligence as a distinct topic. Klbrain ( talk) 20:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

delete - The article author made some changes after I raised these concerns earlier, but the situation doesn't seem to have improved much. The whole article is synth. StereoFolic ( talk) 05:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
delete, reads like an essay. Maybe something can be salvaged and merged to Philosophy of artificial intelligence? Though the philosophy article is also not a good example... Artem.G ( talk) 10:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Battle of Bahraich (1034)

Battle of Bahraich (1034) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article depicts a legendary tale involving two figures, devoid of any historical basis. It fails WP:GNG, and there are no reliable sources referring to it as the "Battle of Bahraich." The title is a fabricated name, and reputable sources do not classify it as a battle. Instead, numerous sources, including the parent article, refer to both figures as part of a legend. Failure to meet GNG criteria and its lack of connection to actual historical events, it is worth noting that no historian identifies it as the "Battle of Bahraich." Imperial [AFCND] 13:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Skynxnex ( talk) 16:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unreliable sources. Old folk tale sources used in the books like one writer Sri Purushottam Singh Yog, graduated in Civil Engineering, that fails WP:HISTRS. Religion professor Hiltebeitel makes a one line mention calling the death of a 19 yr old martyr a legend. Other sources are from founder of India's only open government non-profit trust that fails WP:V. The Page has no scholarly work available that can give some coverage with methodology, jargon and theory. Page on such history needs work from scholarly historians that is worthy through a disciplinary practice and none can be found on this page. RangersRus ( talk) 13:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we do not list myths as if they're real, do any RS treat this as a real battle? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep
I appreciate the concerns raised regarding the historical authenticity of the "Battle of Bahraich (1034)" article. However, I would like to provide some additional context before a decision is made.
While I understand that some sources may classify the events described in the article as a legend or myth, it's essential to recognize the cultural significance of such tales. The story of the Battle of Bahraich holds deep cultural and historical value for many communities, even if it may not align with traditional academic standards of historical evidence.
Rather than outright deletion, I suggest considering alternative approaches to the article. Perhaps it could be revised to include a section discussing the legendary aspects of the story, while also acknowledging its cultural importance. Additionally, efforts could be made to find scholarly perspectives that analyze the narrative from a cultural or folklore studies lens.
In conclusion, I believe that outright deletion may overlook the broader cultural and historical context surrounding the "Battle of Bahraich (1034)". I encourage us to explore alternative solutions that respect the cultural significance of the story while also upholding Wikipedia's standards of verifiability and neutrality.
Thank you for considering my perspective.
Sincerely, Sudsahab ( talk) 13:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Sudsahab ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. reply
I don't understand how this argument makes a point to oppose the deletion. Myths cannot be mixed with history. And most importantly, it is not accepted to invent names for military conflicts, whether it is real, or mythological. I apologize if I'm mistaken, but your comment appears to resemble an AI-generated essay rather than a genuine argument. Imperial [AFCND] 14:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Regarding myths and history, Wikipedia's policy on verifiability WP:V states that all information must be based on reliable, published sources. However, the policy also acknowledges that myths and legends can be significant aspects of cultural narratives surrounding historical events. Therefore, if there are reliable sources discussing the mythological aspects of the Battle of Bahraich and their cultural significance, they can be included in the article with appropriate context and attribution, as outlined in the reliable sources guideline WP:RS.Wikipedia's naming conventions for events WP:EVENTN recommend using the most common name for the event as determined by reliable sources. If there is a commonly accepted name for the Battle of Bahraich in reliable sources, it should be used in the article. However, if no such name exists, a descriptive title that accurately reflects the nature of the conflict can be used, in accordance with the policy on article titles WP:AT. I want to clarify that the sources I have added to the article support and verify the title "Battle of Bahraich." Each citation I have included discusses this specific event, providing historical context and supporting the use of this title. Therefore, it is not an invented name but rather one supported by reliable sources. Sudsahab ( talk) 14:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Again an AI generated essay with no point of valid arguement. Imperial [AFCND] 14:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
That's not an AI generated arguement Sudsahab ( talk) 04:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Sparsh Srivastav

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

I can't find any Independent sources and the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR yet. Rydex64 ( talk) 16:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Blindspot (company)

Blindspot (company) (  | talk | history | 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, coverage is of "top startups" variety and reprints partnership announcements. The best coverage is of the Times Square billboard incident, but it's really not about the company, it's an action by its co-founder, and notability is not inherited. ~ A412 talk! 17:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Peter Griffith

Peter Griffith (  | talk | history | 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 of many "Occupation: Relative" Wiki entries that got created back in the day—even his granddaughter Stella had a page at one point—but somehow it got overlooked when these sort of trivialities were being purged by the numbers. Subject was never covered in the mass media and had no public career to speak of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yours6700 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, March 14, 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I see no problem with deleting this article. If Stella's got deleted then his probably should get deleted too. 2603:6080:5D00:2562:32FC:EBFF:FE13:87D8 ( talk) 23:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Anannyaa Akulaa

Anannyaa Akulaa (  | talk | history | 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:NACTOR (one sort of lead role with five others and one supporting role). Notability not established. All sources are passing mentions. The greatandhra source about Ajastos sounds like an ad and is unreliable: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines on sources.

Best to redirect to Hostel Days. Also, WP:TOO EARLY. DareshMohan ( talk) 21:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • As the original creator of the article, I would like to recommend Strong Keep, as I believe this new age of actors and upcoming film makers would become more and more relevanth with digital age and media, hence if the concensus reaches delete, i would rather have it drafted than merged to any other article. bɑʁɑqoxodaraP ( talk) 06:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as TOOSOON: Have appeared on basically two films per WP: NFILM doesn't signify WP: NACTOR. This is clearly WP: TOOSOON and may meet notability in the future. The sources were not significantly treating th subject and almost if not all dependent on the film Hostel Days and if possible, Redirect.All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 05:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a divergence of opinion. If his was Redirected, what would the target article be? Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Patrick Burgoyne

Patrick Burgoyne (  | talk | history | 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 player. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 ( talk) 22:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Ankit Singh (race car driver)

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

Cannot find anything notable about the individual. His racing stats are certainly not notable.

I am not sure what the "North American Grand Prix Championship held in Las Vegas" is referring to (ie. series, class, car). Also the "Fastest Lap Time Award at Daytona Beach, Florida" may be true but is most likely in a certain type of car which is not notable.

Ultimately I believe it fails SIGCOV lacks strong reliable sources. Grahaml35 ( talk) 20:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as likely hoax. Basically can't corroborate any of the claims in the article or sources; vastly overrepresented at best, just made up at worst. Claimed racing achievements aren't reflected in any racing press, as suggested by GhostOfDanGurney. The cryptography algorithm claims aren't reflected in any academic sources. The "brain-computer interface" claim is likely this obscure conference proceeding paper. [4] ~ A412 talk! 19:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:N. The subject does not seem to have done anything significant and worthy of notice enough to deserve wide attention as technology profession or as race car driver. He is said to be winner of the 2016 Grand Prix. There is no official grand prix site that has him listed as a winner. I do not find any coverage about the race. If he won a grand prix, it does not seem the race was notable. RangersRus ( talk) 12:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD A7 Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

EdubuzzKids

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

Contested draftification. Fails WP:CORP, WP:WEB, and WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Jfire ( talk) 19:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Eric Sage

Eric Sage (  | talk | history | 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 person cites IMDB amoung other questionalbe sources, personal life lists him as part of other nonnotable things Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - Not notable for anything tennis related. As an actor or cover band artist others will need to make that determination. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 08:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on much better sourcing than has been shown. The only GNG-worthy referencing shown here is human-interest coverage of the "local guy does stuff" variety in the local media of the area where he lives, which isn't enough by itself if he has nothing more nationalized — and otherwise the rest of the article is referenced to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all. Bearcat ( talk) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – secondary coverage is WP:ROUTINE (they seem to be stories of the "brief, often light and amusing" variety discussed at that guideline). A Google search turns up no additional resources to build up the article. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 02:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Crazy Bus (video game)

Crazy Bus (video game) (  | talk | history | 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 don't see this being a notable unlicensed video game other than its popularity after being covered by Angry Video Game Nerd and some listicles for worst video game music. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 19:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Feels like it ought to be notable, but alas. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 20:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GNG. One of the few prominent video games developed in Venezuela. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 22:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    There are no sources that count towards notability in the article so please elaborate where the sources that prove it is "prominent" are. Otherwise this is a WP:LOCALFAME argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 22:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don’t see this being prominent as a game developed in Venezuela, it was supposedly someone’s coding demo project that was compiled and packaged in a Sega Genesis cartridge. This would change if it was covered by a reliable source though. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 23:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This game doesn't seem notable at all; I am open to being proven wrong but I cannot see any viable sources in the article that count towards GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 22:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: There's also a Nintendo Switch game with the same name, I don't see coverage of this game. The one RS per Source Highlighter (Source 5) is but a brief mention. I don't see coverage for this game we'd use for notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Felt obligated to at least point to this source by GamesRadar+. It doesn't cover WP:GNG/ WP:SIGCOV/ WP:THREE but I thought I should mention this anyhow for documentation purposes. I did also see a Giant Bomb review for the game but I don't think it was made by one of the editorial staff, but I'll mention it anyways. Captain Galaxy 15:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Can you link to the review? - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 21:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I think it's this one. Skyshifter talk 00:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Although the article has a Giant Bomb review (as mentioned by CaptainGalaxy and sourced by Skyshifter), and a Game music of the day mention at GamesRadar+, The article does not seem to meet neither WP:GNG nor WP:THREE. MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk) 06:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Saltora Dr.BC. Vidyapith

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

A small school - with no notable information online. Suggest delete unless there is something notable Newhaven lad ( talk) 18:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Auto-lead Data Format

Auto-lead Data Format (  | talk | history | 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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:N; as it is all unreferenced, it would benefit from being TNT'ed regardless. I would be interested to hear from people with more expertise in this area than me. Boleyn ( talk) 18:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to Transnistria conflict#International recognition of the sovereignty of Transnistria. Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

International recognition of Transnistria

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

Technically, I propose not to completely delete this article but to redirect it to Transnistria conflict#International recognition of the sovereignty of Transnistria. My rationale is as follows: the useful content of this article can be summarized with, "Only three polities recognize Transnistria's sovereignty, which are themselves largely unrecognized states: Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Artsakh." All other content is already covered by the broader article Transnistria conflict. Initially, I considered merging this article with the broader 'Transnistria conflict' article. However, after reviewing both texts, I concluded that there wasn't any additional useful content to merge. Альдий ( talk) 17:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge I support a merge instead of a redirect. As the International recognition of Transnistria contains some information not found in the Transnistria conflict article, such as the positions by states that do not recognise Transnistria as independent. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk) 18:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Gharanai Khwakhuzhi

Gharanai Khwakhuzhi (  | talk | history | 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 notability guidelines with no reliable sources available. Source found are self publications or mentions. Toadette ( Let's discuss together!) 17:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

And it was mostly created by a single editor, who only edited Khwakhuzhi-surnamed articles 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 17:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

*Delete per nom The Trash Compactor ( talk) 01:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE. — Maile ( talk) 18:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Superbase (database)

Superbase (database) (  | talk | history | 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. There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk) 16:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. The few Delete views cited NPOV concerns, which the Keep consensus views handily countered as an editorial issue, rather than a reason to delete. Similarly, BLP1E/UNDUE issues can be fixed editorially, as long as the subject is otherwise notable, and unsourced claims or labels can be removed without the need to delete or "TNT" the page, as most pointed out. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

StoneToss


StoneToss (  | talk | history | 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 the 3rd deletion nomination for this subject. (Previous discussions: [5], [6]) As observed in WP:BEFORE, the subject status has not changed since the previous 2 deletions - that of a controversial social media artist. As before, the article struggles with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Article is also WP:BLP and does not appear to contain any listed item to satisfy WP:ARTIST. All sourced material to the subject involve activity that occur exclusively on social media.

The article first sentence, short description, and page category refers to the subject as a "neo-nazi" cartoonist. This is despite the claim being disputed by the subject within the sourced materials itself. [7] [8] WP:NPOV

Other material for the article include; sources from political outlets [9] [10] including those calling for the subject's deplatforming [11] per WP:RS, sources that include only short or single-sentence blurbs on the subject [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] WP:SIGCOV, and sources listed as dubious by wikipedia [18] [19] WP:RS. One notable source [20] claims that the subject is a neo-nazi, but itself references a single quote by a user banned on the X platform in relation to the subject. In every single case, the referenced material exclusively concerns interactions on social media. As one source [21] states, "this case is remarkable because no-one outside of extremely online spaces cares." Fails WP:ARTIST criterion. GoggleGoose ( talk) 16:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Webcomics, Politics, and Internet. GoggleGoose ( talk) 16:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I'm divided, because, on one hand, I'd like to see Wikipedia have far fewer articles about random internet personalities. Unfortunately the extent of this specific personality's involvement in far-right radicalization within the United States likely makes him somewhat notable. Ultimately I would say that the references at the SPLC and the ADL indicate more notability than simply showing up on Wired and, on that basis, I'd argue for Weak Keep Simonm223 ( talk) 16:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Oppose. Both articles contain only a single sentence in reference to the subject [22] [23] An obvious example of a WP:SIGCOV problem.
    GoggleGoose ( talk) 16:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning Delete – While StoneToss has become somewhat more notable recently, it is going to be near impossible to keep within the guidelines of WP:NPOV for WP:BLP for this article given the number of detractors he has. GranCavallo ( talk) 17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete. Outside of the doxxing incident, he has received little significant coverage. Perhaps some of this content can be merged into Alt-right pipeline or a similar article? Estreyeria ( talk) 18:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP concerns by nom. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose rewrite the article from a neutral point of view. trainrobber >be me 19:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    What is POV about it? 208.87.236.202 ( talk) 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    There is nothing POV about the article. The article reflects WP:RS. TarnishedPath talk 05:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Include - Is notable and influential in the far-right scene. I'm surprised this matter is even contentious. Roadtruck ( talk) 19:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE SWinxy ( talk) 00:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Concerns about adhering to WP:NPOV are not by themselves sufficient to justify deleting an article, since editors have navigated this on similar WP:BLP topics like the articles for Ben Shapiro and Thomas Robb. Stonetoss having many detractors is not a major issue since most of his detractors are not Wikipedia editors and some of his most vocal supporters are likely to be editors as well (generalizing based on the wider population). I would be willing to take on the task of rewriting this article in a neutral POV.
The claim that this article's existence hinges on social media interactions is inaccurate, since Stonetoss has a long history of publishing comics that espouse the author's views such as [this anti-Semitic one (Archive link [url= https://web.archive.org/web/20240117231253/https://stonetoss.com/comic/as-above-so-below/]). Publishing content on the internet that is subsequently reblogged on social media sites does not seem sufficient to describe someone as a "social media artist".
As far as notability is concerned, I might have been favour of moving the content to a "far right pipeline" or similar article, even after the doxxing incident, but X/Twitter removing mentions of Stonetoss' identity and suppressing journalist accounts elevates the notability of the original account and will result in increased searches for the author's online name. The figure is notable in far right circles, even though far right views are niche among the general population. TROPtastic ( talk) 19:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Publishing content on the internet that is subsequently reblogged on social media sites does not seem sufficient to describe someone as a "social media artist".

When those reblogs are from the creator themself, it most certainly does. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 03:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
In support of @ Brusquedandelion's point, the majority of the article cites a Twitter/X controversy and a single one at that. GoggleGoose ( talk) 05:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The first four references (Wired, Boing Boing, Daily Dot, and Mashable) all seem to show significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:RSPS lists Wired as "generally reliable," Boing Boing as "no consensus on the reliability ... some of its articles are written by subject-matter experts ," Daily Dot as "no consensus regarding the general reliability," and Mashable as "non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine." Elspea756 ( talk) 20:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to 2024 StoneToss controversy or something like that. I don't know whether he can be argued to be notable as a cartoonist, but X's response of aggressively clamping down on efforts to spread the article or even post the subject's name despite it not being per se a TOS violation after StoneToss personally appealed to Musk to do so is definitely getting the kind of coverage to make notability beyond question, especially in light of the apparent double standard regarding deadnaming of trans figures on the platform and Musk's relative inaction in that area. (And if we do do this, we should not publish the subject's name and at least RevDel any previous appearances. I don't care what an execrable human being he probably is, his identity was disclosed without his consent despite his efforts (documented by ACC, no less) to keep it a secret. ACC and all the others spreading it around may have their reasons, and I may agree with them, but Wikipedia does not have to, and should not be, part of this). We can only if he decides to confirm all this and discuss it. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose split the article into two. The 'incident' and the 'webcomic' trainrobber >be me 20:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The “incident” would not pass WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 22:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    They're likely only notable now because of the "incident". I didn't see notability last time about just the webcomic. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose, there's no need for a split. When people are searching for information about this they'll be searching for StoneToss alone. TarnishedPath talk 05:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Comment - In agreement with replies from @ PARAKANYAA, the failure of the subject's notability in the two prior deletion discussions isn't helped with the singular Twitter/X event GoggleGoose ( talk) 05:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Elspea, coverage by RSes has changed since the last nom. 3df ( talk) 21:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. None of these sources show any more notability than the past discussion. They’re all in the context of one event ( WP:BLP1E), him getting doxed, and none of the reliable sources analyze his works. The new sources in existence do not actually discuss what would, hypothetically, be notable about him - the content of his comics. He got doxed, and then people got banned for reporting on it. Add that to the article about controversies relating to Twitter that I’m sure we have. Why would we have an article on an artist, especially a political one, when their works are barely discussed in the sources we have on them? PARAKANYAA ( talk) 22:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
If their works are barely discussed in the sources we have on them, how are we able to have the content found in Special:Permalink/1214892159#Content and reception? — Alalch E. 22:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Looking at the sources in this section,
ADL - passing mention
GNET report - passing mention
GNET - mentions him exclusively in the context of a Reddit conflict with little analysis of what he actually says besides racist
the daily dot - listed as no consensus on reliability; IMO they are not good for notability when it comes to the internet because they have a penchant for covering random internet drama that no other outlet cares about
ECPS - this one is good
CEP - this is an opinion blog PARAKANYAA ( talk) 00:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks, that's a fair analysis, but but this is also SIGCOV: Marlin-Bennett, Renée; Jackson, Susan T (February 9, 2022). "DIY Cruelty: The Global Political Micro-Practices of Hateful Memes". Global Studies Quarterly. 2 (2). doi: 10.1093/isagsq/ksac002. ISSN  2634-3797. Archived from the original on March 21, 2024. Retrieved March 17, 2024. (94 words, goes into intricate detail, discusses the webcomic's impact on certain online communities) — Alalch E. 01:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I'll note to PARAKANYAA and others that it's not necessary that they be notable for "the content of his comics." They can be the author of the least notable comic book on the planet and still be notable for some other reason. Elspea756 ( talk) 02:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There is nothing WP:SIGCOV in the article you linked. A mere three sentences are referring to webcomic out of the whole article, the opposite of "intricate detail". Indeed, the same source was referenced as an example of lack of WP:SIGCOV in prior deletion discussions. GoggleGoose ( talk) 04:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Nah, that's also SIGCOV, and whoever thought it wasn't was just wrong. — Alalch E. 23:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep they are very well known online and on social media, and very controversial as well. rename perhaps? 108.49.72.125 ( talk) 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Rename to what? PARAKANYAA ( talk) 00:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    something like "2024 Stonetoss controversy" like another user suggested or something along those lines 108.49.72.125 ( talk) 02:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Sources 1 and 8 talk about the individual and the Twitter accounts that got banned, and the events around this decision. Likely somewhat more notability now than when I !voted last time, given what's happened. Should be ok for notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I started out editing Wikipedia by successfully deleting dozens of vanity webcomics. This is more notable than all of those combined, backed up with many reliable sources, even before his recent outing. And it's fine to mention the author's name after it has been covered by reliable sources, it's those sources we base our judgement by. The media have a history of unmasking pseudonyms, I think we're overdue a new Banksy or Satoshi Nakamoto outing. - hahnch e n 02:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - We're not here to right great wrongs or to virtue signal, we're here to determine whether a subject meets our standards for inclusion based upon the General Notability Guideline or some focused Special Notability Guideline. This subject in the wake of widespread current coverage in addition to past coverage, clearly does. Fuck the alt right, but that's neither here nor there. Carrite ( talk) 05:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Subject clearly has WP:SIGCOV and passes WP:GNG. We're not here to WP:RGW. We're here to reflect what WP:RS have to say. TarnishedPath talk 05:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: It seems to me, judging by the sources, this comic clearly passes GNG. Di (they-them) ( talk) 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Deletion is not cleanup, and whether to describe him as "neo-Nazi" in Wikivoice is something that should be discussed, rather than used as an argument for deletion. Subject passes WP:GNG, so whether he passes WP:ARTIST or not shouldn't be a relevant factor. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 10:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: By the way, I want to point out that the arguments regarding StoneToss being unimportant to people who aren't "extremely online" or that the article is only about social media usage are unconvincing in my opinion. I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but still, if dril can be a Good Article I don't see why we would need to delete an article on the basis of somebody being a pseudonymous Twitter user. Di (they-them) ( talk) 10:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Clearly passes GNG. Schierbecker ( talk) 14:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Article may need to be reworked but StoneToss as a comic is notable, and there is a lot of news coverage on it. RPI2026F1 ( talk) 14:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's worth noting that the page [24] of the individual named in connection with the article has already been deleted per WP:G10, gross abuse of WP:BLP. As noted in the previous two successful deletion nominations, the subject and its controversy tends to suffer from WP:NPOV and might be the subject to WP:BATTLE. Some users claim no issue with WP:GNG, but as per Wikipedia:Notability (people), which covers biographies of living persons, the relevant criteria is WP:ARTIST and remains unsatisfied. ( WP:GNG specifically links to Wikipedia:Notability (people) in that case). Most of the cited coverage is complaining about the content and not much else. A chartable interpretation might be that the subject is WP:BLP1E for being recently doxed, but the consensus of the prior two deletion discussions is that, on its own, the subject's status is just a controversial twitter user.
MiniMayor98 ( talk) 15:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:SNG do not override WP:GNG, and subject-specific notability guidelines are not requirements if the general one is satisfied. Very explictly, Wikipedia:Notability (people) links to GNG and restates it, saying People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below., and later A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. (emphasis not mine) Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 16:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Can you name which Wikipedia policy says calling a spade a spade is somehow not neutral? If reliable sources are calling Stonetoss a Nazi, I fail to see how that is an NPOV violation. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 03:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: encyclopedically relevant topic with sufficient sourcing already in the article to meet WP:GNG. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 15:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep More than enough ongoing WP:RS-based coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 ( talk) 16:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Multiple reliable sources cover the comic and person behind it, and deletion is not clean up. Justarandomamerican ( talk) Have a good day! 19:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Almost all the article content is about the author's doxxing, and almost all the rest is about alt-right meme culture and Twitter drama generally, of which StoneToss is a small part. On its own, not sufficiently notable as either a cultural force or a webcomic. Candent shlimazel ( talk) 21:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    If the subject is such a small part of it, why is there significant coverage of the webcomic? — Alalch E. 22:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    At present the total article size is 17,220 bytes in size and the section regarding the alleged revelation of their identity is 7,019 bytes in size. Therefore your statement that "[a]lmost all the article content is about the author's doxxing" is plainly incorrect. TarnishedPath talk 01:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    If we want text size alone (no references, templates, etc., just the amount of text content that shows up), that's 4934 bytes and 1889 bytes respectively, so still very far from "almost all". Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 01:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    In any case, not even a good argument for deletion regardless of whether it was even close. TarnishedPath talk 02:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    If we're measuring the text in words and not bytes, like humans who read Wikipedia, doxxing content is 365/779 words, or 46.9%. Not half, but close. Getting doxxed and clowned on by reddit and being a small and relatively uninfluential part of a broad phenomenon – there: that's the whole article – does not make a subject notable. Candent shlimazel ( talk) 11:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Agree with @ Candent shlimazel, as noted in the nom the previous 2 deletion requests could not find notability for an article, and the only update since was a twitter controversy. GoggleGoose ( talk) 05:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I can't quite come to an opinion on deletion or not but Stonetoss is not just "a small part" of alt-right meme culture, he's almost certainly the best known alt-right comic creator nowadays. Alexschmidt711 ( talk) 02:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Sufficient coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG, as noted above. Isi96 ( talk) 00:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There are plenty of good sources here. The naming controversy is the largest single aspect getting coverage but this is far from being BLP1E. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 01:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is just to add that I also oppose any split or rename. There is no distinct second topic here. The comic, its author and his controversies are all aspects of a single topic which is called "StoneToss" and which is the subject of this article. DanielRigal ( talk) 15:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am not seeing any particular evidence to challenge the notability of the subject. Dympies ( talk) 03:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There are enough independent, reliable sources. Their coverage of him as a topic is holistic (the comics, ideology, online influence, previous comics, identity), not in saccade or in relation only to one specific event (re: BLP1E or sporadic coverage concerns). The RS concerns are misstated ("political outlets" is not a reliability categorisation), and so are the BLP concerns (subject denials of labels like "neo-nazi" are not given consideration when deciding neutrality). More subjectively and less policy-based: his cultural "influence" is sustained (duration) and wide enough (leftist attempts to reclaim, and use by Stonetoss of numerous "gateway/radicalization pipeline" memes, like the Bitcoin one, that look innocuous and get widely shared by normies) that having an article seems appropriate. DFlhb ( talk) 04:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Comment Well said. In fact, with reference to the reliability of "political outlets" I would generally treat the SPLC, for example, as more reliable and a greater indicator of notability than general media when addressing notable far-right figures. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose. Statements in your comment are simply incorrect. You state, "subject denials of labels like "neo-nazi" are not given consideration when deciding neutrality" is false. Such a denial, particularly when they appear in secondary sources as noted in the nom, are permissible per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS. This is in addition to the fact that "nazi" is considered a "word to watch" per MOS:LABEL (the WP:BLP concern you glossed over).
    The WP:RS issue also goes beyond simply "misstated" political outlets (neither source was rated by WP:RSP, by the way) . While biased sources are permitted with caution per WP:PARTISAN, they are just one of the issues listed by the nom. It also includes sources that were deemed insufficiently WP:RS in the prior 2 deletion discussions. Again, as now and in the prior deletions, coverage of the subject focuses on drama occurring on social media. GoggleGoose ( talk) 08:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ GoggleGoose, not being rated on WP:RSP is not a statement against a source. To imply that it is displays a fundamental lack of understanding with how WP:RSP and WP:RS/N operate. TarnishedPath talk 08:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I didn't mention it as a statement against a source. I mentioned it to clarify I wasn't doubting a source that might already exist on WP:RSP. GoggleGoose ( talk) 09:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per DFlhb. A normal topic of encyclopedic interest that obviously can be suitably covered.— Alalch E. 14:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's it? At WP:ANI you had written ( diff): Update: I edited the draft, moved it to mainspace based on my editorial judgement, as I found various existing sources, and new significant coverage did materialize in the last few days, then another camel-case-username account appeared from a user who had emailed WMF claiming libel and tagged for G10, Keegan took the tag down, then that user tried to enforce removal leading to 3RRN, leading to a 24h block, but this was then also followed by a CU block. In the meantime, various editors in good standing have seen the article and apparently found no fault with it, and several have edited it. — Alalch E. 11:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) You don't find that pertinent? What happened with the WP:AFC? I read your spartan keep support here, and regardless of the way notability is trending here, I find it lacking. Yes, you have the WP:NPR user right, but from my deletion to your next-day recreation, the timeline seems a bit murky. It'd likely gone unnoticed by me had this not been brought to my attention by another admin, Liz ( diff). So you need to be more upfront with how you operate when it comes to un/deletion of pages involving living persons, Alalch E. El_C 16:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    At some point after making the ANI report I became interested in this topic. When I made the ANI report, I wanted to put a stop to a misuse of Wikipedia. The topic did not seem notable, I found out that there had been AfDs, and thought that we are probably not going to have this article in the foreseeable future. Then, I became interested in the topic simply from being introduced to it. My work on this preexisting draft and the decision to explore developing it into an article is essentially detached from what I saw when I encountered the made-to-troll version of this page which you deleted. And as I was working on the draft, new sources were emerging. Which is completely incidental. I did not predict this medium-size public controversy happening, especially since I am allergic to Twitter and do not follow what is going on there. I started out by adding references to preexisting sources, that already existed at the time of the last AfD, but were either not found or were not assessed properly then. I actually think that the notability of this topic rests on those sources primarily. Ultimately, the content of the page when it was moved to mainspace was completely different from any previous content that was deleted, which I determined by viewing an archived version of a deleted page under this name. Therefore, completely irrespectively of my being a new page patroller, I moved the article as an editorial decision, to enrich the encyclopedia with a new article. I could have marked the article as reviewed as a patroller because I had not created it, but consciously I did not. I anticipated an AfD and AfDs are fine. An AfD is nothing to shy from. My contributions to this article have been very stable and no serious content disputes have emerged since. My approach to this topic has been studious and responsible. And I have a certain view about AfC which I believe to be the only correct view: AfC is optional (the entire draft apparatus is optional— WP:DRAFT: ... creating a Draft version first is optional) and isn't designed to be something else + editors don't need permission to create content, and the only exception to that is when they are technically prevented from doing so through salting and title blacklisting. — Alalch E. 17:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Upon deletion, I pointed to WP:AFC approval, specifically so that there is a record of such a review—a summary—on a page involving a living person that was twice deleted in procedures such as this ( diff). But you have ignored and circumvented that, making that timeline challenging to parse. Do I need to log this caution at WP:AEL to get that point across? I didn't think I needed to, but your response above gives me pause. El_C 17:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I have replied on my talk page. — Alalch E. 18:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The nom has set out in detail the problems with the sources and just been completely ignored. Where is the significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources? Where are the sources covering this prior to the Twitter/X controversy and attempts to reveal the identity of the creator? How can we create an encyclopedic article solely based on media reporting of social media bickering? AusLondonder ( talk) 20:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The complaints of the nom have been responded to in this discussion, and they are mostly frivolous and obviously stand in contrast to the state that the article is in. For example, you say Where are the sources covering this prior to the Twitter/X controversy and attempts to reveal the identity of the creator but this is simply ridiculous and not worth responding to. — Alalch E. 20:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Firstly the nom overstates any issues by trying to muddy the waters on sources for which there is no consensus by claiming that they are "listed as dubious" This is simply incorrect and a misrepresentation of how WP:RSP and WP:RS/N works. A classification of "dubious" is not something that happens at WP:RSP. When RfCs are being run at WP:RS/N on the reliability of sources, "dubious" is not one of the options that is voted for or can be arrived at when a closer determines consensus.
    Secondly even if we only want to rely on sources for which there is no questions about them being WP:GREL, a reference from NBC has been added since the start of this AfD. Therefore there are two in-depth, reliable sources (NBC and Wired). Thus we have "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources".
    Thirdly the references used in the article don't just cover the social media spat, the fact that notability has become more apparent as a result of what occurred is not an argument for deletion. TarnishedPath talk 11:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Support perspective of @ AusLondonder. This article, and the sources that are cited for it have sprung up in connection to a very recent doxing of the subject on twitter. As per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article". This is on top of the fact that the article subject was already deleted after 2 previous deletion discussions for notability issues.
    One user claims the nom is "overstated" for using the phrasing "dubious" when describing some of the citations, however it is perfectly appropriate. While WP:RSP uses the phrase "no consensus on the reliability" for the sources, describing it as "dubious" does not mean "false" or "incorrect". Again, the reliability of some of those same sources were cited as reasoning for the success of previous 2 page deletions. GoggleGoose ( talk) 06:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Please stop bludgeoning the conversation. That's the third !vote you add here, which is frankly inappropriate and gives the appearance that more people are supporting your side than there actually are. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 08:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Reliable sources can talk about anything. They can talk about sports, which is completely trivial. Not only can we discuss these topics, we must. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and oppose split: meets GNG. ( t · c) buidhe 04:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per DFlhb rationale. Issues with RS and POV should be dealt with on talk page, not as part of a deletion process. GNG per SIGCOV from Wired and NBC. Mashable should also be acknowledged as SIGCOV, as there is consensus that the latter's non-sponsored content is "generally fine" within their remit of tech news, which this is. Given previous coverage, can't be considered for BLP1E anymore.
CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 14:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The subject of the article meets WP:GNG. The fact that there may be bias in the article doesn't mean that the article should be deleted - the bias or any wrong facts on the article have to be fixed. Coverage from the Evening Standard, Wired, and MSN is more than enough to establish his notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Neutrality concerns are irrelevant to discussion of deletion. Subject approaches WP:1E, but technically passes it with acceptable sources that predate the event in question. Rᴇɪʟ ( talk) 19:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Neutrality is not relevant here, and there's plenty of good citations for much of the information in the article Freee Contributor ( talk) 11:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but possibly Draftify. I think the other keep !voters have already given good rationales and I mostly agree with them, so there's not much need to add my voice to that. Frankly, I was kind of surprised to see this article nominated for deletion in the first place. That said, I agree that the article is a mess, particularly given the potential BLP concerns, so if it's going to be kept, it definitely needs a lot of cleanup (up to and including the WP:TNT approach). I'm opposed to outright deletion, but I'd be on board with draftifying it. Sleddog116 ( talk) 18:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Something not yet observed in this deletion discussion is an admin admonishing an editor for a deceptive edit that circumvented WP:AFC for this page, which had multiple successful deletion discussions - ( diff) and again ( diff). I have enumerated this and other problems in the Talk Page (also diff for reference).
To reiterate the other issues briefly, they are: reverting good faith edits attempting to prevent MOS:LABEL abuse of WP:BLP; eliminating the subject's url for WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons; and recent news attention drawing users in for a WP:BATTLE that resulted in a WP:G10 deletion of another page and attempts to hide the deletion discussion template on the mainspace, among others.
Minus the edit that was caught by an admin, all of the other issues occurred after the page was already WP:XC protected. This is a WP:NPOV mess. MiniMayor98 ( talk) 21:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
You have not presented any arguments for deletion. TarnishedPath talk 23:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I have and I previously voted for Delete in the discussion above. To clarify, the page suffers from poor WP:NPOV and interference from WP:BATTLE. As another editor suggested, it might be worthy of WP:TNT. This was also the process by which the 1st deletion discussion ended. MiniMayor98 ( talk) 07:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:LASTTIME.
Also, remember to read my comment below (23:43, 26 March 2024) and apologize to me when you can (for saying "deceptive edit"; note that that's your interpretation and the administrator did not say "deceptive"). — Alalch E. 08:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
It was observed, I saw it and responded to it. If you mean "not yet observed" as in editors not yet !voting "delete" based on what is written in that thread, that is something that did not happen because it is not a reason to delete an article, and editors know it. It could happen, as all kinds of comments are possible, and there could indeed be recommendations that the article be deleted because an editor (me) moved this page while it was a draft to article space without submitting through AfC when an administrator pointed to WP:AFC approval. However, these !votes would be discountable as failing to point to a reason to delete a page under Wikipedia's deletion policy, and the consensus to delete could not form around such comments.
You see, when closing deletion discussions, the community's consensus is judged after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue, etc. Were a closing administrator to make such a mistake to delete this page as a page not created through AfC when AfC was indicated because they thought that that was the consensus, that administrator's judgement would be very seriously questioned, and the deletion would be undone via Deletion review. This is not to say that I acted correctly not to use AfC. But the remedy is not deleting the article. It's not about the article as an article, it's about creating an easily attestable proof of good, ordinary, Wikipedia volunteer work. My work was and is good and ordinary, but when I was asked to provide assistance in creating this record, this easily attestable proof (in the form of an AfC pass, and I assure you of this: as I am a reviewer of AfC submissions and am familiar with the process and the requirements, I could hardly face any difficulties in having something I wrote accepted; so it's a formality)—to avoid possible confusion, such as the confusion that can be seen in your comment—I failed to deliver assistance. Not because I did not want to help (I very much want to help and am highly sympathetic to administrators' efforts), but I did not understand what was needed at the moment. The remedy was to warn me, see if I understand the warning and if I am willing to make the needed commitment, which I responded to by making the commitment to follow the guidance given.
Irrespective of this, as none of the above has any bearing on there being or not content issues: There are no content issues. This is a wonderful article, a wonderful educational material that will serve humanity, and a splendid source of free knowledge for generations to come. — Alalch E. 23:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Admin note - I have reverted the early close of this discussion by TarnishedPath, who is involved in the discussion. While this discussion is clearly trending keep, the closer ought to consider that the previous two, rather recent, deletion discussions were strong delete results, and the topic is clearly controversial. Please leave this for an uninvolved closer to evaluate. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks a lot, that closure really shouldn't have happened given how involved the closer was. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 13:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Ivanvector, noted and apologies. TarnishedPath talk 13:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. To me, the subject is notable. A source stating that "no-one outside of extremely online spaces cares" has no bearing on Wikipedia policy. We're not here as activists or to virtue signal, we have to take a level-headed look at the issue of notability.
There is now more significant coverage than when the previous AfDs were opened. This Daily Dot article [ [25]] covers the subject as a person, for example. But many sources refer to him only in the context of the doxing incident, so we have to be wary of WP:BLP1E. I would not oppose renaming the article to focus on this incident.
That said, I believe there is often a shortfall in Wikipedia when primarily internet-famous figures are concerned: our reliance on more "traditional" forms of media here makes very influential people under-represented in sources, despite the internet being very relevant in contemporary discourse. StoneToss has been relevant even outside the far-right bubble for a while now, he just has little coverage in the traditional media we require to have covered him. So, in principle, I am in favor of keeping the article name as it is.
I suggest using the KnowYourMeme entry ([ [26]]) as a source if it can be considered an appropriate one. It lays out facts about the subject in a concise way according to data found through research. As per WP: BOLD I have added it to the page and made other changes defended here, but feel free to revert if needed.
As per WP:BLP policy, I strongly agree that this article should be overhauled to meet WP:NPOV although balanced with the info our WP:RS attest, including referring to him using various derogatory labels. Although I believe including "neo-Nazi" in the lead of the article citing a news article from Wired is a bit much. CVDX ( talk) 16:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
It's also WP:WAPO describing him as such, but I do see your point none the less. For such a contentious MOS:LABEL I'm not convinced two reliable sources are enough as per best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources. This also comes under MOS:OPENPARABIO and doesn't necessarily reflect the balance of reliable sources, even if helps to establish notability. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 17:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Agreed, for the time being I have removed the "neo-Nazi" label. Later we can look more closely at the sources, when the WP:BATTLE ends. CVDX ( talk) 19:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Call me up when it ends so I can join you. Having me on the team is an absolute asset when it comes to checking sources. First dibs on calling what we will look at first: The first source that we will look more closely at will be the reference to WP:KNOWYOURMEME, a WP:UGC website which you added in Special:Diff/1215875130, by consensus listed as a generally unreliable source, meaning: questionable in most cases. ... should never be used for information about a living person. — Alalch E. 23:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The KnowYourMeme source should definitely be discussed, but I genuinely don't think the AfD is the best place to talk about this. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 00:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Of course, the imaginary and imputed battle is certainly expected to continue for some time after the AfD has been closed. — Alalch E. 00:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I think that's the good moment for a reminder to WP:AGF. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 00:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
While I would definitely support that we should all assume good faith I also think the claims that the page is a battleground seem over-salted somewhat. It's a fraught and contentious issue, yes, but I do think the recent multiple RFCs on the page have demonstrated that everybody there, aside from a few WP:NOTHERE trolls who have effectively been removed, is perfectly willing to collaborate. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Chaotic Enby, I'm not sure what there is to discuss? WP:KNOWYOURMEME is WP:GUNREL per consensus at WP:RS/N and therefor it doesn't belong in a BLP under any circumstances and that's the end of the analysis. Is there something I'm missing? TarnishedPath talk 05:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
No, I agree with you, I was just thinking that it could be discussed in case some people would disagree with the removal. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 13:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Surely that's already been conveyed to them? TarnishedPath talk 21:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Virtual Database Manager

Virtual Database Manager (  | talk | history | 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 highly dubious of the presentation of this content. It strikes me as an advertisement for a product disguised as a description of a technology. It also manages to pack in a lot of unsourced description and terminology that is opaque to the non-programmer, but which strikes me as overly promotional in tone. BD2412 T 15:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was draftify‎. (non-admin closure) voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Copyleaks

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

Questioning whether the company has WP:SIGCOV for WP:NCORP. Sources generally list a variety of detection tools and are not primarily about Copyleaks. Suggesting a merge into Artificial intelligence content detection. (Disclosure, I have rejected the article in draft form once) IgelRM ( talk) 15:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Connecticut. IgelRM ( talk) 15:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Draftify: Good number of reliable sources, and if consensus is that subject is not notable now, I think its highly likely the consensus would be that they are in the future. Comintell ( talk) 18:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Source review for demonstration:
    • New York Times, "Another Side of the AI Boom: Detecting What AI Makes": A feature on detecting AI generated content, questionable SIGCOV.
    • Fox News, "AI platform CEO talks new tech detecting plagiarism following Harvard scandal: 'As prevalent as ever'" Primarily an interview.
    • Forbes Staff, "New Tool Can Tell If Something Is AI-Written With 99% Accuracy": Same as one
    • BBC News, "How to spot an AI cheater": Same as one
    IgelRM ( talk) 01:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Draftify: might be WP:TOOSOON. Most articles are passing mentions and listicles. Royal88888 ( talk) 07:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Requesting speedy draftification of this one, I think this subject has merit, and want to be able to take time to improve it.
Comintell ( talk) 18:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Uniting Nations. ✗ plicit 14:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Craig Powell (musician)

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

Solo career and martial arts career have no notability, should be deleted and info added to Uniting Nations InDimensional ( talk) 14:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Abdul Ghaffar Mauwi

Abdul Ghaffar Mauwi (  | talk | history | 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 satisfy WP:GNG. It should have been sent back to AfC for improvements with respect to notability. The sources cited do not help.─ Aafī (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. ─ Aafī (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Poor sources and mostly unreliable with no notable coverage on the subject. The subject does not seem to warrant a biographical page because of no significant, interesting, or unusual enough coverage to deserve attention or to be recorded. Per nom fails WP:GNG. RangersRus ( talk) 13:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Not even close to meeting WP:GNG with absolutely no significant coverage. Sources just make passing mentions in questionable sources. Sk1728 ( talk) 10:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Prabath Ruwan

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

The subject of the article doesn't appear to meet GNG. This player made a single international appearance and played domestically in Sri Lanka. The article is sourced only to a database. I can find some articles mentioning his name in passing but I see no significant coverage. MarchOfThe Greyhounds 13:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Although there is no second "delete" opinion, the "keep" opinions - with the exception of that by GMH Melbourne - are poorly argued: they assert notability, but do not cite specific sources or address the quality of the sources offered by others, which has been contested. Sandstein 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Alison Green

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

There is a lack of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources that discuss the subject in depth. The current cited sources include passing mentions, a contributor piece, and an announcement of her inclusion in the 100 Women of Influence 2016 list, which does not automatically confer notability. Although a Google news search yielded some sources, they primarily consist of passing mentions or self-published materials, none of which establish independent notability. GSS  💬 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/headdd-20170424-gvrdku.html Yes Yes Newspaper of record Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.afr.com/women-of-influence/why-networking-is-vital-when-starting-a-company-20190717-p52851 ~ Basically just quotes. Yes ~ Rather short section of the article. ~ Partial
https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2016/10/05/79021/green-recognised-on-women-of-influence-list/ Yes Yes No Routine. ✘ No
https://apacentrepreneur.com/magazine-digital/vol-11-issue-10.html#features/11 No paid promotion as noted by Scottyoak2 ? Doesn't seem to be an established magazine? Yes ✘ 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}}.
TLA tlak 16:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The Sydney Morning Herald piece is an interview, hence it should not be considered an independent source article appears to be an interview-style piece with a "he said, she said" format, and it requires a subscription to access the entire content. Additionally, the Australian Financial Review article is published by a non-staff contributor and should be treated as self-published sources, similar to many at WP:RSP. GSS  💬 17:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I evaluated my sources according to SIRS and wrote the content around this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you approved these sources. No offense, I just really want to understand what has changed since then. Fact and Curious ( talk) 17:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
No, in fact, I never approved these sources, which is why I declined your submission. These sources do not establish notability because they do not provide the required coverage for the subject, as pointed out above. GSS  💬 17:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The draft was just accepted today, I thought the editor's approval depends on the appropriateness of the sources. GSS suggested de-orphaning the page and improving the categories. I made these changes but now I'm a bit confused, was the fix that bad?
Also, I found another source that mentioned the subject, but just in case, I removed it now if it was causing the problem. Fact and Curious ( talk) 17:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep : if these are the same person [27] and [28], I think we have notability. Australian person in the New York Times could be possible I suppose. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Good work digging that up. NYT is an international publication, so it's squarely within their breadth. TLA tlak 20:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Oaktree b: The article from The New York Times seems to be an opinion piece, as it focuses not on the individual herself but rather on her views, evident in the frequent use of phrases such as "saying" and "said". Conversely, The Cut article is written by a different "Alison Green" and is unrelated to the subject of this article self-published, bearing the name "by Alison Green". GSS  💬 04:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Umm, no. That NYT columnist is not the subject of this article. That columnist (born abt. 1974), is the daughter of an American journalist named, Steve Green, who died in 2001. The subject of this discussion (born 1986) is the daughter of John M. Green. — Scottyoak2 ( talk) 04:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Ah, well spotted. Thank you for your attentive review. @ Oaktree b:, considering these findings, it may be worth reevaluating. 04:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Honestly, without the two sources I listed above, I'm not sure. I can't really !vote one way or another. Struck my prior vote/comment, just going to sit this one out, so to speak. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: There are enough sources that exist (both in and out of the article) to establish notability under WP:GNG. I have found 4. Plus also I think it is safe to say the AFR article counts towards GNG. It is more than just quotes and SIGCOV refers to the substance of a source (ie. a passing mention) rather than the length of a source. GMH Melbourne ( talk) 00:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ GMH Melbourne: I agree that there are articles, but simply having them doesn't automatically make someone notable; they should provide significant coverage, not just passing mentions or interviews. As mentioned before, the AFR article is written by a contributor. Can you please list the four articles here for review? Just saying you found four isn't enough; they need to be shown for proper consideration. GSS  💬 04:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    These are the sources I have found (not already in the article) that count towards WP:GNG: [29] [30] + the AFR and SMH ones already mentioned. I understand that this is a borderline article but I think there is enough to meet GNG with at least two sources that qualify. GMH Melbourne ( talk) 01:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for providing the sources. To pass GNG, the subject needs coverage in independent, reliable sources. While the sources you mentioned are undoubtedly reliable, but they lack independence, so let's examine them closely. As I mentioned earlier, the article by ARF was authored by a contributor, not staff. According to WP:RSP, there's a consensus that such sources lack independence and should be treated as self-published. The SMH piece you mentioned is an interview, which is also not independent.
    Now, let's discuss the two links you provided. The first one by ARF isn't about the subject of this AfD. The article includes comments from multiple people and heavily relies on their words. Similarly, the one from the Daily Telegraph heavily depends on phrases like "he said" and "she said". Since they aren't independent, they are insufficient to establish notability. GSS  💬 04:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - This is within WP:GNG. Good sourcing. Period. BabbaQ ( talk) 13:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ BabbaQ:, could you please highlight which sources you believe are good? Numerous sources are discussing a different individual with the same name, leading to confusion. Additionally, there are a few sources consisting of interviews. Thank you. GSS  💬 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems some disagreement on the suitability of the source material. Additional analysis on this point would be very useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This discussion was relisted twice in the same day so consider this the second, not third, relisting. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think the subject is notable and there are sources to demonstrate that. Nathan N Higgers ( talk) 02:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) — Nathan N Higgers ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    Just stating "there are sources" doesn't actually establish anything. You need to specify which sources, because as I mentioned above and in my deletion rationale, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. While there are some sources, they aren't about this person, but about a different person under the same name. Additionally, it is suspicious that you were registered today and your first edit was to !vote here, so I highly suspect there is a case of WP:PAID and/or socking. GSS  💬 05:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Names of India in its official languages

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

It's basically a big list of unref'd translations, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. An alternative to deletion might be a merge to Names for India. PepperBeast (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge This seems to be reasonable information to have in that article. Reywas92 Talk 02:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    It is not reasonable, and in fact against the spirit of WP:NOINDICSCRIPT. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 04:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; Names for India already exists, and unlike this article it at least tries to be more than a laundry list of dictionary entries. And no, not merge, delete. See WP:INDICSCRIPTS as to why a merge is unwarranted. We don't need to enumerate the name of every Indian topic in every one of its many scripts, and we have a policy in place specifically to guard against such tedium. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 04:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree it is more of an enumeration of dictionary entries rather than an article. Imranqazi90 ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte ( talk) 09:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Linux for PlayStation 2

Linux for PlayStation 2 (  | talk | history | 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. There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk) 12:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep I found SIGCOV in PSM magazine, Linux Voice magazine and Official AUS PlayStation magazine as well as a New York Times article about how scientists made a PS2-based supercomputer, which I believe utilized the Linux for PS2 adapter kit. It also got a Eurogamer article and WIRED article among other things. The argument that there are no independent sources is totally incorrect and fails WP:CSK#3. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    This article has been unmaintained for a long time. Could you, please, add those references to the article, so other editors can validate those references? Mdggdj ( talk) 14:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    That would be a more citations needed template tag. The article may be poor but the PlayStation feature is probably relevant or at least possible to merge into PS2 article. IgelRM ( talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    It's not the responsibility of AfD participants to fix the article to make it notable. See WP:NOEFFORT. All that has to be proven is that the article can be improved and is also not immediately WP:NOT, which it isn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 15:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - In addition to the above, a quick search online shows quite a few independent sources. GBooks alone for example has significant coverage in books on topics like computer science, political science, and a Spanish Programación para PlayStation 2 for Dummies book. Notability requires the existence of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not that they be in the article at the time of nomination. - Aoidh ( talk) 13:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Feels like the nominator did not perform WP:BEFORE. Sufficient sources have already been presented. AFD is not cleanup. -- ferret ( talk) 14:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Very threadbare nom with the nom actively removing content instead of trying to find further sources (which I've reverted; don't do this before the end of the nomination, Mdggdj.). Nate • ( chatter) 20:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The research done by zxcvbnm proves that the article is notable and can meet WP:THREE if and when the sources are inserted in the article. The article does meet WP:GNG and as opposed to what IgelRM has stated saying that the article could be merged into the PlayStation 2 article, I feel the article requires it's mainspace and does not need to be merged. MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk) 06:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Lionel Cristiano ? 19:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Ashutosh (spiritual leader)

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

The subject of this Wikipedia article appears not to meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:GNG. Coverage primarily revolves around the individual's sudden death from cardiac arrest and controversial remarks regarding Sikhism and Sikh gurus, which sparked violent clashes between his followers and certain Sikh groups resulting in fatalities. this incident garnered media attention, but it does not inherently confer notability. Media often sensationalize and report on contentious events. Nearly all the sources in this article zero in on this event, with no secondary, independent, reliable sources found that delve into the subject beyond this incident. The first reference, a YouTube video posted by Divya Jyoti Jagrati Sansthan, an organization founded by the subject, is a primary source and lacks independence from the subject. Furthermore, the article has been subject to persistent conflicts of interest, disruptive editing, and repeated attempts by parties with vested interests to shape its content to fit a particular agenda. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS or a platform for advancing personal agendas. and claims like "His followers believe him to be alive and in a state of samadhi or deep meditation. Since January 2014, his body has been kept in a freezer by the management of DJJS, with a firm belief that he will come out of meditation", referenced to their own official YouTube channel do not meet the GNG standards. No GNG worthy sources found & individual fails the stringent criteria of WP:GNG & WP:BLP1E. Nitish shetty ( talk) 11:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Per nominator and comments above. Sk1728 ( talk) 11:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Complejo Municipal

Complejo Municipal (  | talk | history | 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 refs on the page for many years. Seems unlikely that a stadium for a lower league team is notable but would be interested if anyone else can find sources that meet the GNG standard JMWt ( talk) 09:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete? Is this title too ambiguous?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete unreferenced TheGreatestLuvofAll ( talk) 13:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • delete partially be cause of the ambiguity but also because I seriously doubt the coordinates are correct, as they do not point to a stadium, but to a playing field behind a school. Without that, there really isn't anything to merge anyway. Mangoe ( talk) 22:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 11:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Casiano Mba

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

Fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find anything remotely resembling WP:SIGCOV. Robby.is.on ( talk) 09:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to M.O.N.T. (non-admin closure) voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Bitsaeon

Bitsaeon (  | talk | history | 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 wanted to redirect but decide to AFD so that a consensus will be made. The article was typically based on M.O.N.T including if not all the sources. The article didn't pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I AFD it to he WP:TOOSOON and per WP: MUSICBIO may need to be redirected to the article M.O.N.T. For WP:PRESERVE, Like the singing competition may be fixed variably and optionally, though he may not meet. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 09:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. After almost a month, there is no consensus here, especially when considering changes made to the article Eddie891 Talk Work 15:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Taras Sokolyk

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

WP:BLP of a political organizer, not properly sourced as having a genuinely strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. As currently written, the main notability claim here is that he exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of strong evidence that he would pass WP:GNG -- and while this is a pared-back version of an article that's been moderately longer in the past, I can't revert to older versions as they contained criminal allegations that can't be in the article at all without airtight sourcing for them, and might still just make him a WP:BLP1E anyway.
So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody wants to write a substantial article and source it properly, but the scandal can't be in the article at all without solid sourcing for it, and he just doesn't have any other meaningful notability claims if this is all that can be said about him outside of the scandal. Bearcat ( talk) 06:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 06:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Bearcat - clearly fails GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 21:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Per WP:HEY. Also by 2008 he was CEO of a major Canadian hotel chain, so not BLP1E, although that wouldn't apply anyway given the sustained years-long coverage of the vote-rigging scandal. Central and Adams ( talk) 02:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Being CEO of a hotel company still isn't "inherently" notable in its own right just because you can minimally verify the fact — to become a notability claim that would secure inclusion in Wikipedia, that work would still have to be supported by a lot more ongoing "career" coverage about it than you've added here. Bearcat ( talk) 14:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there have been major improvements and sourcing to the article since its nomination which haven't been assessed here in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for discussing the changes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 08:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Haritha Gogineni

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

Topic is not meeting WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 07:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Abtin Abassi

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 07:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nomination
GoggleGoose ( talk) 12:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Maker here. Meets GNG because article in The Telegraph / British GQ / Vice / more I will keep finding. I will try to add more Deondernemers ( talk) 02:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Article by GQ here is a paid piece, the second source by The Telegraph is self-published here. I doubt the Genuity of the other sources as well. Jamiebuba ( talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This Forbes citation is unreliable an written by a contributor. According to @Jamiebuba, the British GQ article is also a paid one. Promotional theme failing business related guideline. No GNG. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 14:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:CSK #4. ✗ plicit 06:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Sawani (company)

Sawani (company) (  | talk | history | 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. Macbeejack ☎ 05:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. ✗ plicit 06:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of golf video games

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NLIST. TWOrantulaTM ( enter the web) 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Golf. TWOrantulaTM ( enter the web) 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If this list isn't notable, then Lists of sports video games and everything in it are not notable either and should likely have all been bundled together. However, I believe it does pass NLIST as sports video games are a notable subject. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:LISTN can be met, even if it's not currently shown in the article. Did you do WP:BEFORE? Here are a few reliable sources covering the group: [33], [34], [35] (Well, sports, to zxcvbnm's point, but related), [36] (SI comparing different golf video games), [37] (A situational, but here it is), [38] (More group coverage), [39], [40], [41] ... and so on. -- ferret ( talk) 14:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Valid navigational list. Category:Golf video games exist, and list are more useful than categories, more information able to be shown. We need to make the list guideline more obvious since this keeps coming up for years now. Dream Focus 17:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but damn does it ever need some serious cleanup. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 20:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The sources provided above show that the topic of this list is widely-covered by reliable sources as a group or set in both the golf world and the video game world, satisfying WP:NLIST criteria. Left guide ( talk) 21:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Ferret's sources. The list is not very well sourced at the moment, but the article as a whole meets the WP:NLIST criteria. Conyo14 ( talk) 22:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Most of the article includes notable games. There could be some chances for doing a small cleanup. Dympies ( talk) 02:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep The article is properly sourced, and it does meet WP:NLIST. I see no reason for deletion. MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk) 05:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
This vote is a little suspect, @ MKsLifeInANutshell. Pretty much ever !Keep agrees the article is not properly sourced. Did you actually look? We're headed to a keep regardless but you need to be doing a proper evaluation before !voting. -- ferret ( talk) 13:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the whole premise of this nomination puzzles me. The claim is that it fails NLIST. NLIST would generally be satisfied when reliable sources discuss a similar grouping of subjects. Do you mean to tell me that your belief is that publications have never written any articles about the incredibly common subject of golf video games. I get the concern when editors write these bizarre lists like "Platform games featuring animals and time travel", but why would one think a common sports video games wouldn't have coverage out there? Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per ferret Grahaml35 ( talk) 01:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Rather than a third relist, I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Cheryl Ruddock

Cheryl Ruddock (  | talk | history | 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 artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WP:BEFORE does not call up any RS for this artist. I am not finding any sources for claims of being in collections. The article, as currently written, has 4 dead links. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 02:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST, dead links not necessarily a problem, but all refs seem to be local news/gallery. No evidence of widespread/national level exhibition or recognition. Hemmers ( talk) 14:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes WP:BASIC, if not the artist-specific criteria. Have added multiple sources to the article, including this review in a local Ontario newspaper. Her reputation really is as one of the top artists from Guelph, but at least her work is also acknowledged in publications in other parts of Ontario. If this article is not kept, I would suggest a merge and redirect with her husband Nicholas Ruddock's bio, even though their careers are in completely different spheres of work; they have been married for nearly 50 years and there is a lot of coverage about that as well since he likes to talk about it. (It would seem like a more natural fit to combine their bios, if they were both artists or both novelists. For this reason as well, I think it makes more sense to keep her article separate.) Regarding the collections holding her work, there is plenty of secondary coverage accessible via ProQuest that verifies this one by one; it would just take some time to add it back to the article. I came across many snippets of critics assessing/commenting on her work as well in newspapers from the mid-1980s through to her more recent exhibitions, which could be added to the section on "Reception". Cielquiparle ( talk) 06:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful at this point to get some feedback about article improvements that have been made since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Sources are too local, I don't think she's at notability for artists. She doesn't seem to have gathered much attention from the national press in Canada. Guelph is a lower mid sized city in Ontario, so she has some local notability, but it's not Ottawa or Toronto. I don't see her works having been displayed at the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto, the McMaster in Hamilton or any of the national Galleries in Ottawa. I suspect she might not be notable (for our purposes) until after she passes away and the wider art community takes notice. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: She's in the permanent collection of the Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery [42], a regional museum. Does that add to notability? I'm somewhat out of my wheelhouse on this one. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don't think that meets presumed criteria under WP:NARTIST. Criterion 4d would suggest it is necessary to be part of the permanent collection of several notable galleries. Is Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery notable? It has no page and is regional, but even if we grant that it is, this is just one collection. We need several. I think we should be looking at BASIC and ANYBIO. Cielquiparle asserts they meet BASIC, citing one review. The review is occasioned by an exhibition at Glenhyrst Art Gallery. I do not see how that rises above a primary source, tbh. She is an artist, she has an exhibition, and someone writes about the exhibition - which is reporting. Any artist with an exhibition will get that much.
    Put another way, if all we had was that article, what could we really say about the artist? What is an article built on?
    I haven't entered a !vote here because I have not satisfied myself that no secondary sources can be found, but I don't see any that have been presented to date. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 16:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
A review is not a primary source. A gallery announcing an exhibit is a primary source, but a review is secondary by definition, if it is in fact independent. Anyway there are more sources in the article. Cielquiparle ( talk) 17:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The art is the primary source and the review of the art is indeed secondary by definition. But as with all sources, whether a source is primary or secondary often depends on the question being asked. It is secondary for the art, but reporting of an artist's exhibition is primary for the artist. If it goes beyond reporting then it may be secondary for the artist too. But as I said, Put another way, if all we had was that article, what could we really say about the artist? What is an article built on? That is the real question. I'll take a look at the other sources in the article. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Being represented in the Canada Council Art Bank (confirmed) has some heft, and along with the other collections, I believe she passes WP:NARTIST. Curiocurio ( talk) 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I said I would look at the other references in the article. Quite a lot of them are dead. There are a few that contain information that could be used to write about her, such as [43], but these write ups used in exhibitions tend to be written by the artist themself. As such they are inot independent. I looked at her CV [44] and this largely confirms Oaktree b's comments. However, per Curiocurio, the public collections at the end does mention Canada Council Art Bank among others. I am leaning delete, but would sway to keep if I believed NARTIST criterion 4 was met:

    The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

    I think the Canada Council Art Bank is definitely one, but we need several. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
She is in several. I don't see what the problem is with the Art Gallery of Hamilton, as Hamilton is not a small city. I also confirmed the Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery and Glenhyrst in Brant. The University of Guelph site is under construction so couldn't be confirmed. Curiocurio ( talk) 13:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Also she has her own entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Artists which could technically be interpreted as satisfying WP:ANYBIO #3 (broadly construed). Cielquiparle ( talk) 06:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
From my reading of it, I believe the Canadian equivalent would be Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Nothing lesser if the source is to be used to establish presumptive notability. Graywalls ( talk) 15:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - It is borderline, but I am out of my expertise here, and so I think I should give the benefit of the doubt to keeping the article. There does, on the face of it, appear to be reason to believe she is more than just regionally notable. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Presbyterian Church in Korea (YeJangHapBo)

Presbyterian Church in Korea (YeJangHapBo) (  | talk | history | 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 don't want to individually nominate every page in [[Category:Presbyterian denominations in South Korea]], even though none of them seem individually notable. It would flood the AfD log, so consider this a stand-in nomination since there's not really a way to nominate multiple articles at once with Twinkle. Drowssap SMM 01:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Lean delete for this specific article, but skeptical of the other deletions. There's not much online that I can find about this branch; here's an article in a major South Korean Christian newspaper that I think is about it: [45]. However, I think it's likely this and other branches are covered in detail in Korean-language academic sources that are behind paywalls or are in print. The Presbyterian Church in South Korea is infamously fractured and is well studied.
The larger branches especially should not be deleted. Here's an article in The Chosun Ilbo about the Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDong) and Presbyterian Church of Korea (TongHap): [46]. Another in Kukmin Ilbo about TongHap: [47].
Tl;dr the deletion proposals I think need to be individually made, with searches in the Korean language. toobigtokale ( talk) 08:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the source identified above is about it and the size of the membership suggests there should be more coverage, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Taipei Language Institute

Taipei Language Institute (  | talk | history | 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 SIGCOV. Existing citations are primary sources, social media and simple listings. Northern Moonlight 05:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Jia, Yimin 贾益民, ed. (2016). 世界华文教育年鉴（2015） [World Chinese Education Yearbook (2015)] (in Chinese). Beijing: Social Sciences Literature Press. p. 376. ISBN  978-7-509-78633-8. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "中华语文研习所(Taipei Language Institute, TLI) 1956年成立于美国新泽西州, 原名“基督教语文学院”,同年9月于台北建校,教学对象以赴台传教士为主,希望 透过华语学习,使在台传教士能快速融入台湾地区生活。1958年更名为“台北语文 学院”,是世界上第一所华语教会学校。1959年,TLI与美国国务院签署了长达20年 的代训合约,负责培训美国在台外交官、美军顾问团的华语能力。1976年,该校改 名为“中华语文研习所”,保留TLI的英文名称。自1996年开始,TLI开始向外扩 展,相继在北京、上海、东京、多伦多、香港、纽约、旧金山、新德里等地成立分 校, ..."

      From Google Translate: "Taipei Language Institute (TLI) was founded in 1956 in New Jersey, USA, formerly known as "Christian Language Institute". It was established in Taipei in September of the same year. Its teaching targets are mainly missionaries who went to Taiwan, hoping to learn through Chinese language. This enables missionaries in Taiwan to quickly integrate into life in Taiwan. In 1958, it was renamed "Taipei Chinese Language College" and was the first Chinese-speaking church school in the world. In 1959, TLI signed a 20-year training contract with the U.S. State Department, responsible for training the Chinese language skills of U.S. diplomats and U.S. military advisory groups in Taiwan. In 1976, the school was renamed "Chinese Language Institute", retaining the English name of TLI. Since 1996, TLI has begun to expand outward and has successively established branches in Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo, Toronto, Hong Kong, New York, San Francisco, New Delhi and other places ..."

    2. Lai, Mingde 賴明德 (2013). 臺灣華語文教育發展史 [The Development History of Chinese Language Education in Taiwan] (in Chinese). New Taipei: National Academy for Educational Research. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Google Books.

      The book notes on page 20: "臺北語文學院 TLI (Taipei Language Institute) 創立於 1956 年 6 月美國紐澤西州,原名「基 3 督教語文學院」, 9 月在臺灣建校。創辦人美籍安篤思牧師( Rev. Egbert W. Andrews )及中華民國籍何景賢先生。開辦之初,是為培訓在臺灣外籍傳教士研習中華語文,了解中華文化。由於教學績效顯著,深受外籍人士嚮往,遂於 1958 年更名為「臺北語文學院」- TLI ( Taipei Language Institute )。 1959 年 TLI 即與美國國務院簽訂合約,負責代訓美國在臺外交人員,包括美國駐華大使館、美軍顧問團及臺灣協防司令部官員和眷屬的華語文研習,長達二十年。"

      From Google Translate: "Taipei Language Institute TLI (Taipei Language Institute) was founded in June 1956 in New Jersey, USA. Its original name was "Christian Language Institute". It was established in Taiwan in September. The founders are Rev. Egbert W. Andrews, an American, and Mr. He Jingxian, a Chinese national. When it was first founded, it was to train foreign missionaries in Taiwan to learn Chinese language and understand Chinese culture. Due to its remarkable teaching performance, it was highly desired by foreigners, so in 1958 it was renamed "Taipei Language Institute" - TLI (Taipei Language Institute). In 1959, TLI signed a contract with the U.S. Department of State and was responsible for training U.S. diplomats in Taiwan, including Chinese language training for officials and their families of the U.S. Embassy in China, the U.S. Army Advisory Group, and the Taiwan Assistance Defense Command, for twenty years."

    3. Kubler, Cornelius C. (2002). "Learning Chinese in China: Programs for Developing Superior- to Distinguished-Level Chinese-Language Proficiency in China and Taiwan". In Leaver, Betty Lou; Shekhtman, Boris (eds.). Developing Professional-Level Language Proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 107. ISBN  0-521-81657-2. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Taipei Language Institute (TLI). Founded in Taipei in 1955 to train American missionaries to the SD level in Mandarin and Taiwanese, TLI has since expanded to serve increasing numbers of non-missionary students from all over the world, in particular diplomatic and business personnel assigned to Taiwan, their family members, and foreign university students. There are currently over 1,000 students at TLI's five branch schools in Taiwan. Courses at TLI, which may be full-time or part-time, typically consist of a combination of small-group classes of 2-6 students and tutorials. A rather rigorous audiolingual method is employed, especially at the beginning and intermediate levels. TLI has compiled many of its own materials but, beginning ..."

    4. Thompson, Richard J. (July 1991). "Chinese Language Study Abroad in the Summer, 1990. Final Report" (PDF). Center for Applied Linguistics. pp. 13–14. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.

      The article notes: "The Taipei Language Institute (TLI) (main site) is located in downtown Taipei at an easy to reach location. It has facilities in other parts of the island as well. It appears well organized and staffed with competent teachers. TLI is by far the largest of all of the Chinese language programs, with an estimated 400-450 American students at its four sites. It is also, by all accounts one of the most flexible programs of study. Private or group instruction can be arranged on short notice on an intensive or non-intensive basis. As a result, a fairly diversified student body can be found here. Although there is no student housing at the Institute's main site, ample housing is available at the YMCA, the International Student Youth Center, or through private home stays."

    5. Less significant coverage:
      1. Ling, Vivian (2018). "The Cornell Program of 1956–63 and the founding of IUP". In Ling, Vivian (ed.). The Field of Chinese Language Education in the U.S.: A Retrospective of the 20th Century. New York: Routledge. ISBN  978-1-138-50201-7. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Google Books.

        The book notes in a footnote: "Formally the Missionary Language Institute, later it secularized and become the Taipei Language Institute."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Taipei Language Institute ( traditional Chinese: 中華語文研習所; simplified Chinese: 中华语文研习所) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 11:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination has been withdrawn, sources added to the article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Poo Vaasam

Poo Vaasam (  | talk | history | 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 film is obscure, undersourced and fails WP:NFILM. In fact the producer's son said, "even I don’t remember much of that film". Kailash29792 (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, nominator has withdrawn their nomination but there are still a variety of arguments over what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 06:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Karthik Naralasetty

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

Karthik Naralasetty has some sources on his life and company, a 30 under 30 article and some promotional content, he won an award 13 years ago, I don't think it provides SIGCOV or establishes GNG.

I was going to PROD this article until I found that it not only has been PROD'd but has had two previous AFDs, one closed as Delete, the second as No consensus. The article on his company, SocialBlood was Soft Deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialblood. I thought it was time to reexamine this article and consider whether it meets the stricter standards of today's Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

GoggleGoose ( talk) 12:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Closing as keep per clear consensus on the established notability. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 04:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

2015 Tel Aviv bus stabbing attack

2015 Tel Aviv bus stabbing attack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

10 of the 11 sources are from January 2015 when this event happened. No fatalities or WP:LASTING effects to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 02:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - it is in the category of prominent crimes in Israel. It is well-referenced.-- FeralOink ( talk) 16:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    It is only well referenced at time of event, needs persistent, lasting coverage to meet WP:EVENT. Not really a prominent crime is no one died. LibStar ( talk) 03:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Well-sourced event that passes Wikipedia:EVENTCRITERIA. For good and bad, Israelis have a long memory and write about such events time and again in books and articles. It's still early for that. gidonb ( talk) 21:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    9 years after where is the WP:LASTING coverage? 10 of the 11 sources are from the time of the event. LibStar ( talk) 03:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
You mean references. Your nomination sure is focused on what is in the article! It shouldn't be. Here is a second source from another moment. gidonb ( talk) 04:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
from March 2015, barely 2 months after the incident. LibStar ( talk) 08:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
"Israelis have a long memory and write about such events time and again in books and articles." So where are the books and articles about this event and its impacts to meet WP:EVENT. Please read WP:LASTING as well. LibStar ( talk) 08:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
"Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable." LibStar ( talk) 08:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I responded to your comment and went to sleep to find three more comments under my comment. So next there will be nine? And this happened not only under my opinion. You now argue with literally every person who does not agree with you, and that is everyone, in total defiance of WP:BLUDGEON and WP:REPEAT. What is going on LibStar?
This is why the arguments are bad: [1.] Your AfD is focused on references (which you called sources). This is in defiance of WP:NEXIST. You say that there 10 references from the time of the event in the article and one that is from a later time and therefore the article should be deleted. Well, that doesn't matter yet following your logic I brought an extra source that is later than the event and that should have sufficed. By your logic. [2.] Next, your argument becomes a moving target. Suddenly later sources are no good anymore, you complained it was 10-1, and now it is 10-2, yet suddenly the sources need to be from even later. You ask where are these even later sources. Under everyone's opinion. I'll address that as well. News is quick. The source that I brought was a 2-months later history of the event, not just news. Other histories take time to be written. Let's consider a security event from way back so we will have enough historical perspective. I will pick the Ein Ofarim killings because I participated in the debate and remember the debate well. In Ein Ofarim, three Israeli security guards, securing a drilling site, were murdered. All of them happened to be Druze. The event occurred in September 1956. When the article was nominated for deletion in 2022, there was one reference from 2022 in the article. A history. The Israeli archives suck (well, still they're better than nothing), yet I was able to find more sources and after the fact stick these in the article as well. Now in the article, you will find news reports from September 1956 and histories from 1963, 1964, 1992, 1988, and 2002. This means that while on average, a relevant history is written every decade, there can be also gaps of nearly 30 years. The important part is the principle, which I already laid out: For good and bad, Israelis have a long memory and write about such events time and again in books and articles. It's still early for that. gidonb ( talk) 23:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. So we should wait for 30 years before considering this article for deletion? The fact there are 10 sources indicate this is perhaps WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar ( talk) 23:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
This is not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument at all. An OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument would be if I would assign importance to the fact that another article was kept. I DO NOT! I'm explaining to you with an example of an event that happened a long time ago that it takes time for history to be written. And even then, the source that I added is a HISTORICAL SOURCE that looks back at the event! gidonb ( talk) 00:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
so should we ban AfDs for 30 years on all Israeli event articles? LibStar ( talk) 00:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
No. Some AfDs make sense. This nomination is not one of them. And here is a source that discusses the event in 2016. Almost 2 years after it happened. It totally debunks your argument once again! In other words, the subject of this AfD should be kept by WP:EVENTCRITERIA, WP:LASTING, WP:EFFECT, and WP:NOTNEWS! gidonb ( talk) 00:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Significant coverage by reliable sources. The number of fatalities is irrelevant to the question of notability. Marokwitz ( talk) 11:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Did the attack have any WP:EFFECT as evidenced by persistent coverage well after the event? LibStar ( talk) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As a significant event with numerous reliable sources. Hogo-2020 ( talk) 07:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Zhuan Zhu

Zhuan Zhu (  | talk | history | 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 and BIO1E applies. I could find pre-Wikipedia sources like this and this but they only mention him as the assassin of King Liao. This seemingly can't be draftified and redirects are costly. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • There seems to be a number of sources at the Japanese and Chinese Wikipedias - have any of those been checked? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 00:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • This is frankly an odd nomination. It includes a search on Google Books on the string Zhuan Zhu "專諸" which normally excludes English-only and Chinese-only sources, but despite that the search still return results as stated on the nom. Those are entries on a compilation of characters in Beijing Opera, showing that the story of this assassination is still being performed after 2,500 years (thus BIO1E does not apply). Another thing is the arbitrary cut-off criteria for "pre-Wikipedia sources", as if books published after Wikipedia's establishment are not reliable. Even supposing that this page could not stand on its own, redirecting to Liao of Wu is a perfectly valid option and the "costly" argument is just nonsensical here. Searching on Google Books with the English (specifying "assassin" to filter out unrelated mentions) and Chinese separately gives pages upon pages of results, and for that I say keep. _dk ( talk) 01:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The nominator is actually stating the opposite: They searched for "pre-Wikipedia" sources and found little of merit; they also searched for Wikipedia-era sources, the lack of both, per the nominator, leading to this AfD submission. Nowhere is it claimed or implied that "books published after Wikipedia's establishment are not reliable." - The Gnome ( talk) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per _dk's comment Ominateu ( talk) 11:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC) striking comment by confirmed and blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep What nonsense, AFD! A historical figure from ancient China and a regicide who played a key role in history is clearly notable. You should read the Chinese Wikipedia article first before opening an AFD discussion. Shame on you. 1.46.91.225 ( talk) 08:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While prima facie the below looks like a clear keep, I cannot in good conscience close as 'keep' a debate on an article which has absolutely no references included. Relisting to ensure that if we keep this article, it is in a suitable condition to do so. While AfD is not cleanup, it's also not a suicide pact.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 22:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge onto Liao of Wu since subject lacks distinct, independent notability. The opera is indeed well known. - The Gnome ( talk) 11:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sources have been added, and this seems to have a great deal of notability, considering there's book sources thousands of years after his life giving pages of coverage to him, in addition to a number of modern websites also having stories focused on him. "Merging" to Liao of Wu would likely equate to "redirecting", which would result in a loss of relevant and encyclopedic information on a notable and wanted topic ( thousands of views in the past year; only a few people from 2.5 thousand years ago can claim that!). Meanwhile, if we actually did "merge" all this information to that article, the article would then be more focused on the assassin than the king its about! (Not to mention the Chinese Wikipedia has way more information as well.) Thus a standalone article is the best option. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
What other-language Wikipedias are doing carries little to no weight as to how we proceed here. As to the predicted "imbalance" in the text in case this is merged to Liao of Wu, if this indeed proves to be an issue, it would be addressed in its own time per WP:WEIGHT, WP:SIZE, and WP:BALANCE. In the meantime, the search for significant, independent notability goes on. - The Gnome ( talk) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The only way to correctly "balance" it out would be to have standalone pages (and as your main rebuttal, you misinterpret a minor point of my argument with an essay that doesn't really rebut it). As for whether he needs "significant, independent notability" of being an assassin, note that per WP:1E (the policy on that): If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Wikipedia's policy literally uses this type of example as what is an appropriate standalone in this sort of event. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
And how many as well as how strong notability- supporting sources do we obtain by the correct search? Not enough, really. - The Gnome ( talk) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Plenty, actually. See below. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Once again, and without any more feeling than before, whatever notability can be scared up belongs to the assassination itself and the art works inspired by it; most notably the opera. Not the person per se. - The Gnome ( talk) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Yet there's pages and pages and pages of works talking about him (e.g. this book with several pages on him, one of the first results) and the article gets several times as many views as the king he assassinated – all indications are that this is worthy of a standalone page. We could of course move this to "Zhuan Zhu's assassination of Liao of Wu", but the content wouldn't change any and it wouldn't look right because its a biography on a page that is not titled as a biography is. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Consensus split between merge and keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep He is a highly notable historical figure from the Spring and Autumn period. The article has been expanded, and a strong source, "The Biographies of Assassins," has been added. He is an example of a king killer, and King Helu honored him by holding a state funeral. In the modern era, a street is named after him, establishing a pagoda in his honor. Being a stub article is not a problem, and we don't want to lose such a valuable biography of such a notable figure. Thank you. 2A02:1406:6B:9548:68EE:F8E1:674B:2343 ( talk) 00:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The sources in the article show that the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. 2A02:1406:6B:9548:68EE:F8E1:674B:2343 has done impressive work on expanding the article, clearly showing the subject's importance and notability such that a merge to Liao of Wu would be undue weight. Cunard ( talk) 07:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Karnataka Forest Service

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

Zero secondary sources, no evidence of notability AusLondonder ( talk) 17:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure the article is intended to be about the department. It seems to be about a role, it says the Karnataka Forest Service "is awarded to a person who is selected in the KFS exam conducted by Karnataka Public Service Commission" AusLondonder ( talk) 11:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Right, but that's clearly a content issue, and Afd is not cleanup. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 07:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
You know what, I thought about it and you're right. Not one sentence in the article as written is actually about the department as such; it would be better to nuke it and rewrite. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 02:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 22:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Move to Karnataka Forest Department per above. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 01:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
For the record, I have changed my vote. I agree an article should exist for Karnataka Forest Department, but this one isn't even pretend to be about that. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 02:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Yeah that's what I'm saying. The department itself may very well be notable, but this article is not about the department. It's barely clear what it's about. AusLondonder ( talk) 02:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Indeed. See my latest reply to your comment. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 07:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a review of recently found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source eval would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Fliff Social Sportsbook

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

Promotional article that was previously draftified, fails WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage that isn't promotional. ~ Eejit43 ( talk) 01:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Pennsylvania. ~ Eejit43 ( talk) 01:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Cited to a bunch of thinly concealed native advertising. SI [55] - This isn't an independent review; promotional call to actions everywhere: "signing up for a NEW account", "Join Fliff today", etc. Chicago Tribune [56] - "Fliff combines the excitement of sports betting with the camaraderie of social media", "Current Fliff offer", exclusively promotional. The Washington Post source is better, but it seems to be the only acceptable source. ~ A412 talk! 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Besides the Washington Post article, there isn't any other WP:GNG coverage present, either in the article or elsewhere. Let'srun ( talk) 02:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per Letsrun. Only 1 decent source, and no evidence of anymore to pass WP:GNG. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - very weak coverage, does not meets GNG. Bikerose ( talk) 02:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG -- Devoke water 19:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. For editors who object to Deletion, it all comes down to policy and having multiple, independent, secondary sources providing significant coverage. The same as every other article on the project. You can always work on a better sourced version in Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Vishuddhananda Paramahansa

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, specifically WP:GNG's WP:SIGCOV aspect and has never been reliably sourced since it was first created in 2015. While some attempts have been made, no edits have stuck due to unreliable sources (blogs or wikiclones that clearly sourced past versions of this page which again, offered no reliable sources). Zinnober9 ( talk) 01:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Seems to have a website and several facebook pages, about the extent of coverage I see for this person. Not meeting notability with a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless reliable independent sources are found in Bengali or other languages. Mccapra ( talk) 07:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No sources on the page and simple search brings up blogs and Facebook pages. No independent reliable source I can find that can run parallel with what's on the page. Page fails notability guidelines. RangersRus ( talk) 12:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Please don't delete this page. He is a great spiritual master and was extremely influential in his era and has done huge amounts of service to humanity. We will update the page soon with all details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.47.72 ( talk) 17:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to Parrot virtual machine. I'll just add that there are several other "Parrot" articles that are due to be Merged into this target article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Mod parrot

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

Minor software project whose development appears to have ended around 2009, with the project still in a "pre-alpha" stage, and whose parent project (the Parrot virtual machine) was itself pining for the fjords officially discontinued in 2017. No third-party references in the article, and I wasn't able to find any online either. Omphalographer ( talk) 19:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article does not qualify for soft-deletion, as PROD was previously declined.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Agree with nom - no independent sources, I also searched and could not find any. Does not meet WP:NSOFTWARE. Tacyarg ( talk) 21:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 13 March 2024 (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! 00:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Some works of art with a mod theme involving parrots, nothing about this software that I can find. Trivial coverage even now with the few sources we have. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge to Parrot virtual machine, it would be better in that article. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk) 01:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_March_21&oldid=1217159044"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 20 March 22 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. based on newly located sources but it seems to be a Weak Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Zhengzhou No.47 Middle School

Zhengzhou No.47 Middle School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find anything notable online about the school (which has 7000 students and 500 staff). Most online articles repeat the existing Wikipedia wording which reads like an advertisement. The only exception I can find is Deloitte - who say the school offers classes to international students ( https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/at/Documents/Tax/Chinese%20Services%20Group/kr_cbc_investment_henan-zhengzhou_en_201612.pdf) Newhaven lad ( talk) 17:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:

    All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

    Sources
    1. "叶小耀：郑州47中的发展是郑州教育史上的奇迹" [Ye Xiaoyao: The development of Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School is a miracle in the history of education in Zhengzhou]. China Daily (in Chinese). 2016-05-27. Archived from the original on 2024-03-09. Retrieved 2024-03-09.

      The article notes: "郑州市第47中学（下称郑州47中），一所只有20年历史的学校。每年都有毕业生成功考入清华、北大、浙大等名牌大学，连续多年高考国家级宏志班一本上线率达到100%，2013-2016年连续四届国际班毕业生全部被世界500强名校录取。2015年，郑州47中获得了河南省“十大最具国际特色学校”荣誉称号，2016年被评为河南省唯一一家国际教育类“河南教育名片”。"

      From Google Translate: "Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School (hereinafter referred to as Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School) is a school with a history of only 20 years. Every year, graduates are successfully admitted to prestigious universities such as Tsinghua University, Peking University, and Zhejiang University. For many years, the admission rate of the national-level Hongzhi class in the college entrance examination has reached 100%. From 2013 to 2016, all graduates of the four consecutive international classes were admitted to the world's top 500 universities. In 2015, Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School won the honorary title of "Top Ten Most International Schools" in Henan Province. In 2016, it was named the only international education "Henan Education Business Card" in Henan Province."

    2. Tan, Ping 谭萍 (2022-10-10). "优质教育资源扩容！郑州市第四十七初级中学（东校区）正式揭牌" [Expansion of high-quality educational resources! Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School (East Campus) was officially unveiled]. Dahe Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-03-09. Retrieved 2024-03-09.

      The article notes: "郑州市第四十七初级中学1996年建校，先后被授予“全国文明单位”“全国文明校园”“全国国防教育示范学校”“郑州市首批新优质初中”等国家省市级荣誉百余项，连续20年荣评“郑州市教学创新先进单位”。此次优质教育资源的扩容，将推进优质教育更加均衡。"

      From Google Translate: "Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School was established in 1996. It has been awarded more than 100 national, provincial and municipal honors such as "National Civilized Unit", "National Civilized Campus", "National Defense Education Demonstration School", "Zhengzhou City's First Batch New High-Quality Junior High School", etc. Xiang has been rated as "Zhengzhou Advanced Unit for Teaching Innovation" for 20 consecutive years. This expansion of high-quality educational resources will promote a more balanced high-quality education."

      The article notes: "大河报·豫视频记者现场了解到，郑州市第四十七初级中学（东校区）位于金水区杨金路街道。... 郑州市第四十七初级中学（东校区）在建项目工程计划将于2023年5月经过验收，2023年9月投入使用。该校区占地40余亩，建筑面积60000平方米，可满足48教学班的正常使用。"

      From Google Translate: "Dahe News·Yu Video reporter learned on the spot that Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School (East Campus) is located in Yangjin Road Street, Jinshui District. ... The project under construction in the middle school (East Campus) is scheduled to be inspected and accepted in May 2023 and put into use in September 2023. The campus covers an area of ​​more than 40 acres, with a construction area of ​​60,000 square meters, which can meet the normal use of 48 teaching classes."

    3. Wang, Guoyong 王国勇 (2023-10-25). Zhao, Na 赵娜 (ed.). "郑州市第四十七初级中学校长夏霞：把铿锵誓言照进现实" [Xia Xia, principal of No. 47 Junior High School in Zhengzhou City: Turning the sonorous oath into reality]. 祖国 [Motherland] (in Chinese). China Economic Media Association. Archived from the original on 2024-03-09. Retrieved 2024-03-09.

      The article notes: "1996年大学毕业后，被分配到郑州市第四十七中学，成为这所新建校的第一批教师。从筚路蓝缕的艰难创业到成为有广泛影响力的全国文明校园，夏霞见证了这所学校迭代升级的每一步，她也从一名教师成长为中层干部、副校长、专职副书记到分级管理后郑州市第四十七初级中学的校长。"

      From Google Translate: "After graduating from university in 1996, he was assigned to Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School and became the first batch of teachers in this new school. From a difficult start-up to becoming a nationally civilized campus with widespread influence, Xia Xia has witnessed every step of the school's iterative upgrades. She has also grown from a teacher to a middle-level cadre, vice-principal, full-time deputy secretary to a post-graduation management The principal of Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School."

      The article notes: "8月27日，郑州市第四十七初级中学东校区迎来了首批1000余名学子，为了保证新校区开学平稳有序，夏霞整整两周没有回家，吃住在校、时刻守护。"

      From Google Translate: "On August 27, the East Campus of No. 47 Junior High School in Zhengzhou welcomed the first batch of more than 1,000 students. In order to ensure the smooth and orderly opening of the new campus, Xia Xia did not go home for two whole weeks, living and eating in school and guarding her at all times."

    4. Xu, Hongli 许红丽; Zhao, Demin 赵德民 (2019-12-18). "法制安全知识进校园郑州市第四十七初级中学举行法制安全教育讲座" [Legal safety knowledge enters the campus. Zhengzhou City No. 47 Junior High School held a legal safety education lecture] (in Chinese). China Internet Information Center. Archived from the original on 2024-03-09. Retrieved 2024-03-09.

      The article notes: "据悉，郑州市第四十七初级中学除积极开展讲座外，还进一步完善了校园欺凌及校园突发事件处置的处理制度、措施，建立了校园欺凌事件、校园突发事件处置应急处理预案，明确了相关岗位教职工预防和职责。"

      From Google Translate: "It is reported that in addition to actively conducting lectures, Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School has further improved the system and measures for handling campus bullying and campus emergencies , established an emergency response plan for campus bullying and campus emergencies , and clearly stated The prevention and responsibilities of faculty and staff in relevant positions have been clarified. "

    5. Guo, Xinyue 郭昕玥 (2023-06-19). "鄭州市第四十七初級中學東校區今秋將正式招生" [Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior Middle School East Campus will officially enroll students this fall]. Hong Kong Commercial Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-03-09. Retrieved 2024-03-09.

      The article notes: "6月19日，記者從鄭州市第四十七初級中學獲悉，鄭州市第四十七初級中學東校區（以下簡稱東校區）將在2023年秋季學期正式投入使用，新七年級計劃招收8個班。"

      From Google Translate: "On June 19, reporters learned from Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School that the East Campus of Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School (hereinafter referred to as the East Campus) will be officially put into use in the fall semester of 2023. The new seventh grade students are planned to enroll 8 classes."

    6. Zhang, Kedan 张可丹 (2003-07-05). "郑州市 10所 高中戴上"示范帽"" [10 high schools in Zhengzhou awarded "demonstration model" status]. Dahe Daily (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "本报讯由郑州市政府教育督导室组织，各社区代表、学生家长代表参与，经过近半年时间的开放式评估，郑州市首批１０所示范性高中昨天脱颖而出。 据了解，从２００２年９月２５日起到今年６月１８日止，１０所示范性高中经过了开放性的评估方式，"

      From Google Translate: "This report was organized by the Education Supervision Office of the Zhengzhou Municipal Government, with the participation of community representatives and student parent representatives. After nearly half a year of open evaluation, the first batch of 10 demonstration model high schools in Zhengzhou stood out yesterday. It is understood that from 25 September 2002 to 18 June this year, 10 model high schools passed an open evaluation method."

      The article notes: "这１０所示范性高中分别为：... 郑州市第四十七中学(高 中部) ..."

      From Google Translate: "These 10 demonstration model high schools are: ... Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School (High School Division) ..."

    7. Zhang, Kedan 张可丹; Zhang, Qiaofu 张乔甫 (2004-03-30). "逃生演练 该跳楼时就跳楼" [Escape drill: jump when it’s time to jump]. Dahe Daily (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "本报讯昨天上午9时15分，郑州市第四十七中学高中部的警报突然拉响，教学楼内外迅速弥漫起滚滚浓烟。三楼6名被困在阳台上的学生，在消防官兵的指挥下，纵身从10米高处跃向 地上的气垫(右图 )… …这是昨天该校在全国中小学安全教育日组织的一场大型逃生演练，200多名学生分别采用不同的方式安全逃离了“危险地带”。"

      From Google Translate: "This newspaper reported that at 9:15 a.m. yesterday, the alarm in the high school section of Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School suddenly sounded, and thick smoke quickly filled the inside and outside of the teaching building. Six students trapped on the balcony on the third floor, under the command of fire officers and soldiers, jumped from a height of 10 meters to an air mattress on the ground (picture on the right)... This was organized by the school yesterday on the National Primary and Secondary School Safety Education Day In a large-scale escape drill, more than 200 students used different methods to escape the "danger zone" safely."

    8. "国际教育实验班进驻郑州高中 中学校园出现留学 "预备军"" [International education experimental class is stationed in Zhengzhou high school, and a "preparatory army" for studying abroad appears on the middle school campus]. Dahe Daily (in Chinese). 2004-05-25.

      The article notes: "与此同时，郑州市第四十七中学也已通过中国教育国际交流协会，与新西兰国立西方理工学院签订协议，成立中国与新西兰友好实验班，并已在郑州市教育局备案，计划于2004年招收首批计划内学生。"

      From Google Translate: "At the same time, Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School has also signed an agreement with the National Western Institute of Technology of New Zealand through the China Education International Exchange Association to establish a China-New Zealand friendship experimental class. It has been registered with the Zhengzhou Municipal Education Bureau and is planned to be launched in 2004 after recruiting the first batch of planned students."

    9. "宏志班里的碰撞与成长" [Collision and growth in provincial class]. Dahe Daily (in Chinese). 2004-06-01.

      The article notes: "去年9月开学后，郑州市第四十七中、省实验中学等全省5所高中，开办了第一批省级宏志班。根据省教育厅的批准，共有150名来自全省各地贫困地区、家庭贫困却品学兼优的学生，走进了郑州市的两所高中。"

      From Google Translate: "After the start of school in September last year, five high schools in the province, including Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School and Provincial Experimental Middle School, opened the first batch of provincial ambition classes."

      The article notes: "在郑州市第四十七中，学生刚进校时，学校了解到，几乎所有的宏志生在英语和计算机两科上，学习起来都非常吃力，而四十七中的不少城市学生却又有着城里独生子女的骄横等通病。"

      From Google Translate: "In Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School, when the students first entered the school, the school learned that almost all Hongzhi students had difficulty learning in English and computer subjects, while many urban students in No. 7 Middle School had difficulty learning. He has the arrogance and arrogance common among only children in the city."

      The article notes: "五一期间，郑州市第四十七中的老师到了全省多个贫困县乡进行考察。在那里，他们看到了更多家庭贫困的学生。"

      From Google Translate: "During the May Day period, teachers from Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School visited many impoverished counties and villages across the province for inspections. There, they saw more students from poor families."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School ( simplified Chinese: 郑州市第四十七中学; traditional Chinese: 鄭州市第四十七中學) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 11:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the sources found by User:Cunard. I'm puzzled by User:Bearian's comment – we have articles about many other secondary schools, and the fact that this is a secondary school doesn't seem like a reason for deleting the article. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 07:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Probably delete - I accept that the notability of schools is still a contested area and we still need clarity on how we are making AfD decisions. However following this RfC the consensus is that secondary schools need to show they meet the same notability standards as other organisations. Simply WP:ROUTINE coverage and regurgitated press releases are not enough. Cunard has supplied a blizzard of such sources in their usual way (I'm not criticising, having sources to discuss at AfD is better than no sources) but in my opinion these are simply statements that all schools everywhere aim to get in local newspaper coverage. I appreciate it is an example of systematic bias, but unless we see significant and independent coverage in a reliable source (which as far as I'm concerned essentially means pages in a book or a long press article) I'm !voting delete. JMWt ( talk) 09:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:NSCHOOL only requires GNG for public schools, and Cunards sources are sufficient to meet that bar. Jumpytoo Talk 19:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Weak keep per sources provided by Cunard, but also taking into account JMWt's arguments. S5A-0043 Talk 05:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Looking at those sources, they are all primary, aren't they? Do we have any secondary sourcing? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 14:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says that primary sources are "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved". I do not consider these newspaper articles to be "close to an event" or "written by people who are directly involved". They are secondary sources that rely on primary sources in discussing the school's history and background. Cunard ( talk) 01:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, anyone want to take on evaluating the newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: JMWt's statement that "secondary schools need to show they meet the same notability standards as other organisations" is an inaccurate reading of the guideline. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools says:

    All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

    The guideline says that for non-profit schools like Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School, passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline is sufficient. There is no need for the school to also pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria.

    JMWt's statement that schools have to receive "pages in a book or a long press article" is a much higher bar than what the guideline requires and is contradicted by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which defines significant coverage like this:

    "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

    Bearian wrote, " One of thousands of similar schools. Fails GNG." This comment fails to explain why the school "fails GNG". That this school is like "one of thousands of similar schools" is not a policy-based reason for deletion. And calling this school run-of-the-mill is false because the school was designated an exemplar senior high school [ zh in July 2003. From this book published by Springer Nature (which is licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/):

    Thus, the Chinese government had to develop a project of Key High School that classified a part of schools as key schools while others as ordinary schools in order to concentrate limited resources on quality assurance in key schools. In 1953, 194 high schools of the country were named as Key High Schools. 194 schools were a very small portion (4.4%) of the large number of high schools in China (Li, 2003, p. 276). According to related policy, the Key High Schools were given priority in funding, human resource, school facilities, and selection of students. By extraordinary input, the Key High Schools had constantly improved the quality of their teaching and learning and prepared a number of excellent graduates for the country since then (Feng, 2007). Historically, the project of Key High School made a great contribution to prepare quality graduates of senior high schools for China's universities and colleges as well as for the country's industry and agriculture by concentrating limited resources during 1950s and 1960s. However, with the increasing demand for senior high school education in the early 1990s, the issue of expanding the scale of senior high school education was put on the agenda of Chinese government. The State Council called on building up 1000 high quality senior high schools throughout the country in its RHD in 1994, Opinions of State Council on carrying out "Compendium for China's educational reform and development (State Council, 1994). In this RHD, the old name Key High School was replaced by a new name Exemplar Senior High School (hereafter called "ESHS").

    Cunard ( talk) 01:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Out of the 9 sources put up by Cunard above, 5 are from Dahe Daily, which amounts to a single source i.e. same publisher. Of the others, source 1 is brief but OK. Source 3 is about a teacher; the school is only mentioned. Sources 4 & 5 look like reports on press releases put out by the school — doubtful independence and no editorial analysis or commentary. Basically, there's coverage of the school in Dahe Daily and source 1, but this doesn't satisfy the multiple, independent requirement of GNG; multiple meaning 3 or more independent reliable sources. Rupples ( talk) 02:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected."

      "multiple meaning 3 or more independent reliable sources" is inaccurate. wikt:multiple says: "More than one". Merriam-Webster says, "consisting of, including, or involving more than one". Cambridge Dictionary says, "having more than one and usually several of something".

      I consider sources 4 and 5 to be sufficiently independent to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which says:

      "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

      The sources are bylined and are not "works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". Source 4 contains the reporter's observations of a school lecture, while source 5 contains the journalist's reporting on the new East Campus expansion. Editors could try to make the argument that sources 4 and 5 do not meet the "intellectual independence" requirement of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources, but Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline has no such requirement. As a non-profit school, Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School needs to meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

      Cunard ( talk) 04:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

      I acknowledge your explanation over how you see the guidelines, but it is but one interpretation, albeit a valid one. "Multiple" could mean just two sources and could amount to satisfying significant coverage. I might agree with this if source 1 offered more indepth coverage than half a dozen short sentences on the school. I assess the sources to decide what content can be employed in writing an encyclopedic article and evaluate whether there's enough such material. I'm not seeing sufficient depth in the sources, so to my thinking the GNG is not satisfied. The only reason I've held back from !voting delete is because of uncertainty over whether the designation "exemplar high school" makes the school notable, when compared with the 15,000 or so other senior high schools in China. Rupples ( talk) 05:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Here are some additional sources about Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School:
    1. Zhang, Qin 张勤 (2010-05-28). "教学有法，但无定法，贵在得法。走进郑州四十七中感受特色新课改。近50名外籍教师带来国际化教育开设中澳、中美国际班" [There are methods for teaching, but there is no fixed method. The most important thing is to obtain the method. Enter Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School to experience the unique new curriculum reform. Nearly 50 foreign teachers bring international education and open Chinese-Australian and Chinese-American international classes]. Zhengzhou Evening News [ zh (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25.

      The article notes: "其中，中澳班是郑州四十七中和澳大利亚阿德雷德大学附属中学安斯伯利学院合作开办的，是进入世界500强大学的基地。采取中外教师同时授课的方式，并将根据学生的综合情况，定制四个留学方向：美国排名前50的大学、美国排名前100的大学、澳大利亚五星大学、澳大利亚四星大学。美高中双文凭国际班（简称中美班）是由四十七中和美国华盛顿州教育局附属中学合作的项目。采用中英双语教学的方式，让学生同时完成中国和美国高中课程的学习，并获得受到中国教育部和美国教育部认可的中国高中文凭和美国高中文凭。学生的最终升学目标是以美国为主的前100名大学，及加拿大、澳洲、英国等的世界名校。"

      From Google Translate: "Among them, the Chinese-Australian class is jointly run by Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School and Eynesbury College, a high school affiliated with the University of Adelaide in Australia. It is a base for entering the world's top 500 universities. Chinese and foreign teachers will teach at the same time, and four study abroad directions will be customized according to the comprehensive situation of the students: the top 50 universities in the United States, the top 100 universities in the United States, five-star universities in Australia, and four-star universities in Australia. The U.S. High School Dual Diploma International Class (referred to as the Chinese-American Class) is a cooperative project between No. 47 Middle School and the High School Affiliated to the Washington State Department of Education in the United States. Using Chinese-English bilingual teaching, students can complete Chinese and American high school courses at the same time, and obtain Chinese high school diplomas and American high school diplomas recognised by the Chinese Ministry of Education and the U.S. Ministry of Education. The students’ ultimate admission goal is the top 100 universities, mainly in the United States, as well as world-famous universities in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom."

    2. Zhu, Ruirui 朱瑞瑞; Yue, Changchang 岳常常 (2016). "网球训练对大学生体质健康影响的研究" [网球训练对大学生体质健康影响的研究]. 文体用品与科技 [Culture & Sports Utensils and Technology Journal] (in Chinese) (13). doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8902.2016.13.045. ISSN  1006-8902. Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25 – via Wanfang Data [ zh.

      The abstract notes: "采用文献资料法、实验法、数理统计法等研究方法，对郑州市第四十七中学高一网球选项班男生的体质健康指标进行测试、分析和研究，旨在探讨网球在高中体育课程中的开设对高中学生体质健康指标有何影响。结果表明高中学生通过网球课的锻炼，对体质健康指标有积极的促进作用，与传统的体育教学相比，高中网球选项课的开设，有助于激发高中学生的体育锻炼兴趣，对提升自身体质健康水平的效果明显。"

      From Google Translate: "Using literature methods, experimental methods, mathematical statistics and other research methods, the physical health indicators of the boys in the first-grade tennis optional class of Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School were tested, analyzed and studied, with the aim of exploring the role of tennis in high school physical education courses. What impact does the establishment of a middle school have on the physical health indicators of high school students. The results show that high school students’ exercise in tennis classes has a positive effect on physical health indicators. Compared with traditional physical education, the opening of high school tennis optional courses can help stimulate high school students’ interest in physical exercise and improve their physical fitness. The effect on health level is obvious."

    3. Bai, Jiong 白泂 (2006). "郑州市第四十七中学高中部建筑设计概述" [Overview of the architectural design of the high school section of Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School]. 四川建材 [Sichuan Building Materials] (in Chinese). 32 (3): 217–219. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-4011.2006.03.112. ISSN  1672-4011. Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25 – via Wanfang Data [ zh.

      The abstract notes: "郑州市47中是郑州市规模最大的一所公立现代化中学,建校6年.初、高中学生达4 500多人. 为适应发展的需求,拟在郑东新区新建优质高中部.校园占地258亩,建筑面积达8.7万多平方米,拥有完备的教学、实验、体育和生活设施以及富有人文气息的校园空间,实行寄宿制管理,为学生提供充足的学习时间及良好、舒适的生活条件."

      From Google Translate: "Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School is the largest public modern middle school in Zhengzhou City. It was established 6 years ago. There are more than 4,500 junior and senior high school students. In order to meet the needs of development, it is planned to build a new high-quality high school in Zhengdong New District. The campus covers an area of 258 acres, with a construction area of more than 87,000 square meters, has complete teaching, experimental, sports and living facilities as well as a campus space rich in humanistic atmosphere. It implements boarding management to provide students with sufficient study time and good and comfortable living conditions."

    Cunard ( talk) 08:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on additional 3 sources provided by Cunard. The first is helpful as it shows international links which may raise the school above 'run of the mill' criticism. The tennis one doesn't help with notability — it's the sort of 'research' I've seen with Indonesian schools on Google Scholar — as the report itself concludes "the effect on health is obvious". The third is useful, but again brief, if that's all there is. GNG coverage borderline, but there's suggestions the school is notable. Good work by Cunard finding all these sources. Rupples ( talk) 14:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you for reviewing the sources. The third source is three pages long, and the quote is from the abstract. Cunard ( talk) 06:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. It's unfortunate there's access restrictions on the architectural design of the school (source 3 Bai, Jiong ). It is 3 pages in length and appears to be focussed on the school. In my view when combined with the other sources there is now just about enough to take this over the line in respect of the significant coverage requirement of the GNG. Rupples ( talk) 13:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. as there is disagreement over whether the sources found are sufficient for establishing notability. I don't think a third relist would help us arrive at a consensus here so I'm closing this now. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Chawadee Nualkhair

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

Appears to be a non-notable individual due to the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sources primarily comprise passing mentions or interviews, which is also consistent with WP:BEFORE. Despite occasional appearances as a guest on TV shows, this alone does not establish notability. Additionally, the author appears to have a COI/UPE, considering their edit history. GSS  💬 16:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, such reviews don't give a free pass to notability no matter where they were published. Additionally, the other sources you mentioned are merely passing mentions and do not constitute the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. GSS  💬 20:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply
SouthernNights was making an argument under WP:AUTHOR #3, not the GNG. It says, ... Such a person is notable if: ... 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) -- Paul_012 ( talk) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply
To satisfy WP:AUTHOR#3, the book must pass WP:NBOOK, which is not the case here. Furthermore, looking at the disclaimer in the Foreword, it indicates that her book was not selected by them for review, but rather she sent her book and requested a review. The disclaimer reads: "Disclosure: This article is not an endorsement, but a review. The publisher of this book provided free copies of the book to have their book reviewed by a professional reviewer..." GSS  💬 04:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
For authors and other creative professionals, reviews are used along with overall media coverage to establish notability. And the language on the Foreword review doesn't change the fact that it is a review. Numerous publishers provide copies of books for review consideration. That is very different from a paid review or paying the reviewer. Foreword still selected the book for review. And you are absolutely wrong that to meet WP:AUTHOR#3 their books must pass WP:NBOOK. That has never been a notability guideline or requirement for any author or creative professional. SouthernNights ( talk) 13:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Also, with regards to your claim that the media coverage isn't "significant coverage," the basic criteria under notability states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." I believe that is what we have here with all the media coverage of this person as a street food expert. This author has been featured as a street food expert in a large number of media outlets and on some well-known TV shows. When that is combined with the reviews of her books, then notability is established. SouthernNights ( talk) 13:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Also, I'm not sure what you meant by "Current sources primarily comprise passing mentions or interviews, which is also consistent with WP:BEFORE." Did you perhaps mean to point to some other page? -- Paul_012 ( talk) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply
With the term 'current sources,' I am referring to the sources already present in the article. GSS  💬 04:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
But what does WP:BEFORE say about them? That's the art I don't understand. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 09:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I can't decide what my vote is, but GSS, what's your problem? Don't make this discussion problematic. Someone presented reliable independent sources, but you always say, in many Thai-related AfD discussions, in some way, that these are not reliable, passing them off as mentioned, not independent, and dismissing interview pieces, blah blah... etc, even these coverages are pretty fine. In my view, these sources are okay. Please stay cool and don't resort to WP:IDONTLIKE. Thanks 180.183.224.201 ( talk) 18:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • The sources:
    • this source published by a popular magazine is an interview so not independent. this is also an interview
    • this which is primary and written by subject.
  • I stopped here as I went deeper on Google, but no reliable sources were found. Since it fails notability guidelines, delete. Toadette ( Let's discuss together!) 07:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep: Multiple book reviews as given above, and this from New Zealand [1] and one from Indonesia [2], I think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I do not see any in-depth coverage about her in any reputable newspaper rather than self-authored articles, however there are some book reviews from reliable sources that may make her notable. Atighot ( talk) 22:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Pakistani provincial elections

2024 Pakistani provincial elections (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

IMO fails WP:STAND. Saqib ( talk) 11:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: Agree with nom, plus we have separate election articles for each provincial assembly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep It seems like a useful disambiguator to me? SportingFlyer T· C 16:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
We have Template:Pakistani general election, 2024. -- Saqib ( talk) 17:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
We also have functionally the same page at 2018 Pakistani provincial elections. SportingFlyer T· C 10:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It's a useful DAB article and something to point {{ Pakistani elections}} to. Number 5 7 09:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are 4 internal links in page, which are already in Template:Pakistani general election, 2024.-- Ameen Akbar ( talk) 17:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep–This article serves as a valuable disambiguator, given that every Pakistani provincial election has one. Moreover, it addresses the limitation of templates like {{ Pakistani elections}} not displaying on the mobile version. Ainty Painty ( talk) 05:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as a useful DAB page, per Number 57 and Ainty Painty. Sal2100 ( talk) 17:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. "It's useful" is an argument to be avoided in AFDLand.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

OpenSym

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

Previous AfD closed as no consensus due to zero participation. That does not change the fact that this is still almost entirely primary sourced navel gazing, and tagged as such since 2015 without improvement [with] no real evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 23:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No secondary sources by either current or previous name. ~ A412 talk! 15:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ LibStar ( talk) 23:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Miras International School Astana

Miras International School Astana (  | talk | history | 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 coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 23:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep These sources 1, 2, 3 give a fair coverage to the subject for notability Atighot ( talk) 23:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Steve Hoberman

Steve Hoberman (  | talk | history | 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 man has a job--but that job does not guarantee notability, and there is no secondary sourcing to provide notability via the GNG. He had an award, but that award does not confer notability. There was a spammy list of books (look in the history) but without secondary sources (reviews etc.), and Technics Publication seems like a fishy publishing outfit. Much of the remaining sourcing is on websites, resume-style material. The editor who denied the PROD mentioned WP:THREE but I don't even see ONE significant independent secondary source. Drmies ( talk) 21:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Some book seller listings, mostly PR items I find. I don't see notability with the sources given either. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Finance, Engineering, Technology, Computing, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Lecturers, at US universities, are unlikely to be notable through WP:PROF, because it is a title used for people hired to teach classes but not expected to have signicant scholarly achievements. (In UK-based systems, the meaning of the title is totally different, more like assistant professor in US terms.) Anyway, I didn't find evidence for academic notability or WP:AUTHOR based notability for the subject. I don't think the DAMA award is enough for WP:PROF#C2 and its award citation page doesn't provide enough depth to count as one of the multiple sources needed for WP:NBIO. I note that the article history includes accusations of undeclared paid editing but I don't know what the evidence for that might be; if it can be provided it might strengthen the case for deletion, but I think that case is clear enough already. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not really a case for WP:Prof here. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC). reply
  • Delete undisclosed paid-for spam. I PRODed this earlier but it was contested by another editor. There is no evidence of satisfying WP:GNG or WP:PROF. GSS  💬 04:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF. Qflib ( talk) 17:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I contested the PROD earlier here [3] with some reasons of excluding the primary sources and not sure whether the job, Data modelling instructor (or related) is notable or ever be. I can see it's not inclusive and not encyclopedic. Maybe WP:NPOV problem and SIGCOV. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 17:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as undisclosed paid spam per GSS. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 22:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Can you or GSS respond to requests that you provide evidence of being undisclosed paid editing rather than just throwing around evidence-free accusations, please? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ David Eppstein: they are solid and have already been shared with the functionaries. GSS  💬 05:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    So "delete because I have secret evidence that I'm not going to tell you"? I can understand the reasons for not publicizing the methods by which you might have discovered such behavior, but the price for not publicizing it is that it cannot be used as evidence in an open and evidence-based procedure such as AfD. See also The Trial. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    No, delete because there is no evidence satisfying notability criteria, as I mentioned in my !vote above. The reason for not publicly posting the details is that it contains personal information that could violate WP:OUTING. GSS  💬 06:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes, you provided a guideline-based deletion reason. Lepricavark didn't. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    A ping would have helped. The editor who created this article is currently pursuing the deletion of an article about a company created by Gurbaksh Chahal, an individual with an extensive history of using undisclosed paid editors to try to whitewash his own biography. There are numerous suspicious editors who have turned up at that AfD to support deletion, all of whom are parroting the same types of arguments that I recognize from prior involvement with Chahal's article. Based on all of this, I believe that the creator of this article is an undisclosed paid editor. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 15:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete can't find anything that suggests he is notable Devoke water 21:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Eschatology of artificial intelligence

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

This is an essay-like WP:SYNTH mixing Transhumanism, Posthumanism and Existential risk from artificial general intelligence. The term eschatology isn't mentioned in the most of the source, and given the mix of references there is no clear target (the 3 linked topics all being sufficiently well-developed and not needing the 6 references here). WP:Original Research. My searches don't find reliable sources supporting Eschatology of artificial intelligence as a distinct topic. Klbrain ( talk) 20:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

delete - The article author made some changes after I raised these concerns earlier, but the situation doesn't seem to have improved much. The whole article is synth. StereoFolic ( talk) 05:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
delete, reads like an essay. Maybe something can be salvaged and merged to Philosophy of artificial intelligence? Though the philosophy article is also not a good example... Artem.G ( talk) 10:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Battle of Bahraich (1034)

Battle of Bahraich (1034) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article depicts a legendary tale involving two figures, devoid of any historical basis. It fails WP:GNG, and there are no reliable sources referring to it as the "Battle of Bahraich." The title is a fabricated name, and reputable sources do not classify it as a battle. Instead, numerous sources, including the parent article, refer to both figures as part of a legend. Failure to meet GNG criteria and its lack of connection to actual historical events, it is worth noting that no historian identifies it as the "Battle of Bahraich." Imperial [AFCND] 13:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Skynxnex ( talk) 16:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unreliable sources. Old folk tale sources used in the books like one writer Sri Purushottam Singh Yog, graduated in Civil Engineering, that fails WP:HISTRS. Religion professor Hiltebeitel makes a one line mention calling the death of a 19 yr old martyr a legend. Other sources are from founder of India's only open government non-profit trust that fails WP:V. The Page has no scholarly work available that can give some coverage with methodology, jargon and theory. Page on such history needs work from scholarly historians that is worthy through a disciplinary practice and none can be found on this page. RangersRus ( talk) 13:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we do not list myths as if they're real, do any RS treat this as a real battle? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep
I appreciate the concerns raised regarding the historical authenticity of the "Battle of Bahraich (1034)" article. However, I would like to provide some additional context before a decision is made.
While I understand that some sources may classify the events described in the article as a legend or myth, it's essential to recognize the cultural significance of such tales. The story of the Battle of Bahraich holds deep cultural and historical value for many communities, even if it may not align with traditional academic standards of historical evidence.
Rather than outright deletion, I suggest considering alternative approaches to the article. Perhaps it could be revised to include a section discussing the legendary aspects of the story, while also acknowledging its cultural importance. Additionally, efforts could be made to find scholarly perspectives that analyze the narrative from a cultural or folklore studies lens.
In conclusion, I believe that outright deletion may overlook the broader cultural and historical context surrounding the "Battle of Bahraich (1034)". I encourage us to explore alternative solutions that respect the cultural significance of the story while also upholding Wikipedia's standards of verifiability and neutrality.
Thank you for considering my perspective.
Sincerely, Sudsahab ( talk) 13:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Sudsahab ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. reply
I don't understand how this argument makes a point to oppose the deletion. Myths cannot be mixed with history. And most importantly, it is not accepted to invent names for military conflicts, whether it is real, or mythological. I apologize if I'm mistaken, but your comment appears to resemble an AI-generated essay rather than a genuine argument. Imperial [AFCND] 14:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Regarding myths and history, Wikipedia's policy on verifiability WP:V states that all information must be based on reliable, published sources. However, the policy also acknowledges that myths and legends can be significant aspects of cultural narratives surrounding historical events. Therefore, if there are reliable sources discussing the mythological aspects of the Battle of Bahraich and their cultural significance, they can be included in the article with appropriate context and attribution, as outlined in the reliable sources guideline WP:RS.Wikipedia's naming conventions for events WP:EVENTN recommend using the most common name for the event as determined by reliable sources. If there is a commonly accepted name for the Battle of Bahraich in reliable sources, it should be used in the article. However, if no such name exists, a descriptive title that accurately reflects the nature of the conflict can be used, in accordance with the policy on article titles WP:AT. I want to clarify that the sources I have added to the article support and verify the title "Battle of Bahraich." Each citation I have included discusses this specific event, providing historical context and supporting the use of this title. Therefore, it is not an invented name but rather one supported by reliable sources. Sudsahab ( talk) 14:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Again an AI generated essay with no point of valid arguement. Imperial [AFCND] 14:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
That's not an AI generated arguement Sudsahab ( talk) 04:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Sparsh Srivastav

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

I can't find any Independent sources and the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR yet. Rydex64 ( talk) 16:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Blindspot (company)

Blindspot (company) (  | talk | history | 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, coverage is of "top startups" variety and reprints partnership announcements. The best coverage is of the Times Square billboard incident, but it's really not about the company, it's an action by its co-founder, and notability is not inherited. ~ A412 talk! 17:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Peter Griffith

Peter Griffith (  | talk | history | 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 of many "Occupation: Relative" Wiki entries that got created back in the day—even his granddaughter Stella had a page at one point—but somehow it got overlooked when these sort of trivialities were being purged by the numbers. Subject was never covered in the mass media and had no public career to speak of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yours6700 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, March 14, 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I see no problem with deleting this article. If Stella's got deleted then his probably should get deleted too. 2603:6080:5D00:2562:32FC:EBFF:FE13:87D8 ( talk) 23:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Anannyaa Akulaa

Anannyaa Akulaa (  | talk | history | 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:NACTOR (one sort of lead role with five others and one supporting role). Notability not established. All sources are passing mentions. The greatandhra source about Ajastos sounds like an ad and is unreliable: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines on sources.

Best to redirect to Hostel Days. Also, WP:TOO EARLY. DareshMohan ( talk) 21:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • As the original creator of the article, I would like to recommend Strong Keep, as I believe this new age of actors and upcoming film makers would become more and more relevanth with digital age and media, hence if the concensus reaches delete, i would rather have it drafted than merged to any other article. bɑʁɑqoxodaraP ( talk) 06:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as TOOSOON: Have appeared on basically two films per WP: NFILM doesn't signify WP: NACTOR. This is clearly WP: TOOSOON and may meet notability in the future. The sources were not significantly treating th subject and almost if not all dependent on the film Hostel Days and if possible, Redirect.All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 05:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a divergence of opinion. If his was Redirected, what would the target article be? Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Patrick Burgoyne

Patrick Burgoyne (  | talk | history | 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 player. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 ( talk) 22:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Ankit Singh (race car driver)

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

Cannot find anything notable about the individual. His racing stats are certainly not notable.

I am not sure what the "North American Grand Prix Championship held in Las Vegas" is referring to (ie. series, class, car). Also the "Fastest Lap Time Award at Daytona Beach, Florida" may be true but is most likely in a certain type of car which is not notable.

Ultimately I believe it fails SIGCOV lacks strong reliable sources. Grahaml35 ( talk) 20:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as likely hoax. Basically can't corroborate any of the claims in the article or sources; vastly overrepresented at best, just made up at worst. Claimed racing achievements aren't reflected in any racing press, as suggested by GhostOfDanGurney. The cryptography algorithm claims aren't reflected in any academic sources. The "brain-computer interface" claim is likely this obscure conference proceeding paper. [4] ~ A412 talk! 19:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:N. The subject does not seem to have done anything significant and worthy of notice enough to deserve wide attention as technology profession or as race car driver. He is said to be winner of the 2016 Grand Prix. There is no official grand prix site that has him listed as a winner. I do not find any coverage about the race. If he won a grand prix, it does not seem the race was notable. RangersRus ( talk) 12:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD A7 Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

EdubuzzKids

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

Contested draftification. Fails WP:CORP, WP:WEB, and WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Jfire ( talk) 19:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Eric Sage

Eric Sage (  | talk | history | 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 person cites IMDB amoung other questionalbe sources, personal life lists him as part of other nonnotable things Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - Not notable for anything tennis related. As an actor or cover band artist others will need to make that determination. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 08:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on much better sourcing than has been shown. The only GNG-worthy referencing shown here is human-interest coverage of the "local guy does stuff" variety in the local media of the area where he lives, which isn't enough by itself if he has nothing more nationalized — and otherwise the rest of the article is referenced to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all. Bearcat ( talk) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – secondary coverage is WP:ROUTINE (they seem to be stories of the "brief, often light and amusing" variety discussed at that guideline). A Google search turns up no additional resources to build up the article. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 02:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Crazy Bus (video game)

Crazy Bus (video game) (  | talk | history | 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 don't see this being a notable unlicensed video game other than its popularity after being covered by Angry Video Game Nerd and some listicles for worst video game music. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 19:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Feels like it ought to be notable, but alas. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 20:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GNG. One of the few prominent video games developed in Venezuela. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 22:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    There are no sources that count towards notability in the article so please elaborate where the sources that prove it is "prominent" are. Otherwise this is a WP:LOCALFAME argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 22:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don’t see this being prominent as a game developed in Venezuela, it was supposedly someone’s coding demo project that was compiled and packaged in a Sega Genesis cartridge. This would change if it was covered by a reliable source though. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 23:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This game doesn't seem notable at all; I am open to being proven wrong but I cannot see any viable sources in the article that count towards GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 22:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: There's also a Nintendo Switch game with the same name, I don't see coverage of this game. The one RS per Source Highlighter (Source 5) is but a brief mention. I don't see coverage for this game we'd use for notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Felt obligated to at least point to this source by GamesRadar+. It doesn't cover WP:GNG/ WP:SIGCOV/ WP:THREE but I thought I should mention this anyhow for documentation purposes. I did also see a Giant Bomb review for the game but I don't think it was made by one of the editorial staff, but I'll mention it anyways. Captain Galaxy 15:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Can you link to the review? - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 21:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I think it's this one. Skyshifter talk 00:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Although the article has a Giant Bomb review (as mentioned by CaptainGalaxy and sourced by Skyshifter), and a Game music of the day mention at GamesRadar+, The article does not seem to meet neither WP:GNG nor WP:THREE. MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk) 06:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Saltora Dr.BC. Vidyapith

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

A small school - with no notable information online. Suggest delete unless there is something notable Newhaven lad ( talk) 18:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Auto-lead Data Format

Auto-lead Data Format (  | talk | history | 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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:N; as it is all unreferenced, it would benefit from being TNT'ed regardless. I would be interested to hear from people with more expertise in this area than me. Boleyn ( talk) 18:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to Transnistria conflict#International recognition of the sovereignty of Transnistria. Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

International recognition of Transnistria

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

Technically, I propose not to completely delete this article but to redirect it to Transnistria conflict#International recognition of the sovereignty of Transnistria. My rationale is as follows: the useful content of this article can be summarized with, "Only three polities recognize Transnistria's sovereignty, which are themselves largely unrecognized states: Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Artsakh." All other content is already covered by the broader article Transnistria conflict. Initially, I considered merging this article with the broader 'Transnistria conflict' article. However, after reviewing both texts, I concluded that there wasn't any additional useful content to merge. Альдий ( talk) 17:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge I support a merge instead of a redirect. As the International recognition of Transnistria contains some information not found in the Transnistria conflict article, such as the positions by states that do not recognise Transnistria as independent. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk) 18:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Gharanai Khwakhuzhi

Gharanai Khwakhuzhi (  | talk | history | 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 notability guidelines with no reliable sources available. Source found are self publications or mentions. Toadette ( Let's discuss together!) 17:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

And it was mostly created by a single editor, who only edited Khwakhuzhi-surnamed articles 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 17:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

*Delete per nom The Trash Compactor ( talk) 01:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE. — Maile ( talk) 18:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Superbase (database)

Superbase (database) (  | talk | history | 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. There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk) 16:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. The few Delete views cited NPOV concerns, which the Keep consensus views handily countered as an editorial issue, rather than a reason to delete. Similarly, BLP1E/UNDUE issues can be fixed editorially, as long as the subject is otherwise notable, and unsourced claims or labels can be removed without the need to delete or "TNT" the page, as most pointed out. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

StoneToss


StoneToss (  | talk | history | 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 the 3rd deletion nomination for this subject. (Previous discussions: [5], [6]) As observed in WP:BEFORE, the subject status has not changed since the previous 2 deletions - that of a controversial social media artist. As before, the article struggles with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Article is also WP:BLP and does not appear to contain any listed item to satisfy WP:ARTIST. All sourced material to the subject involve activity that occur exclusively on social media.

The article first sentence, short description, and page category refers to the subject as a "neo-nazi" cartoonist. This is despite the claim being disputed by the subject within the sourced materials itself. [7] [8] WP:NPOV

Other material for the article include; sources from political outlets [9] [10] including those calling for the subject's deplatforming [11] per WP:RS, sources that include only short or single-sentence blurbs on the subject [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] WP:SIGCOV, and sources listed as dubious by wikipedia [18] [19] WP:RS. One notable source [20] claims that the subject is a neo-nazi, but itself references a single quote by a user banned on the X platform in relation to the subject. In every single case, the referenced material exclusively concerns interactions on social media. As one source [21] states, "this case is remarkable because no-one outside of extremely online spaces cares." Fails WP:ARTIST criterion. GoggleGoose ( talk) 16:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Webcomics, Politics, and Internet. GoggleGoose ( talk) 16:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I'm divided, because, on one hand, I'd like to see Wikipedia have far fewer articles about random internet personalities. Unfortunately the extent of this specific personality's involvement in far-right radicalization within the United States likely makes him somewhat notable. Ultimately I would say that the references at the SPLC and the ADL indicate more notability than simply showing up on Wired and, on that basis, I'd argue for Weak Keep Simonm223 ( talk) 16:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Oppose. Both articles contain only a single sentence in reference to the subject [22] [23] An obvious example of a WP:SIGCOV problem.
    GoggleGoose ( talk) 16:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning Delete – While StoneToss has become somewhat more notable recently, it is going to be near impossible to keep within the guidelines of WP:NPOV for WP:BLP for this article given the number of detractors he has. GranCavallo ( talk) 17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete. Outside of the doxxing incident, he has received little significant coverage. Perhaps some of this content can be merged into Alt-right pipeline or a similar article? Estreyeria ( talk) 18:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP concerns by nom. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose rewrite the article from a neutral point of view. trainrobber >be me 19:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    What is POV about it? 208.87.236.202 ( talk) 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    There is nothing POV about the article. The article reflects WP:RS. TarnishedPath talk 05:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Include - Is notable and influential in the far-right scene. I'm surprised this matter is even contentious. Roadtruck ( talk) 19:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE SWinxy ( talk) 00:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Concerns about adhering to WP:NPOV are not by themselves sufficient to justify deleting an article, since editors have navigated this on similar WP:BLP topics like the articles for Ben Shapiro and Thomas Robb. Stonetoss having many detractors is not a major issue since most of his detractors are not Wikipedia editors and some of his most vocal supporters are likely to be editors as well (generalizing based on the wider population). I would be willing to take on the task of rewriting this article in a neutral POV.
The claim that this article's existence hinges on social media interactions is inaccurate, since Stonetoss has a long history of publishing comics that espouse the author's views such as [this anti-Semitic one (Archive link [url= https://web.archive.org/web/20240117231253/https://stonetoss.com/comic/as-above-so-below/]). Publishing content on the internet that is subsequently reblogged on social media sites does not seem sufficient to describe someone as a "social media artist".
As far as notability is concerned, I might have been favour of moving the content to a "far right pipeline" or similar article, even after the doxxing incident, but X/Twitter removing mentions of Stonetoss' identity and suppressing journalist accounts elevates the notability of the original account and will result in increased searches for the author's online name. The figure is notable in far right circles, even though far right views are niche among the general population. TROPtastic ( talk) 19:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Publishing content on the internet that is subsequently reblogged on social media sites does not seem sufficient to describe someone as a "social media artist".

When those reblogs are from the creator themself, it most certainly does. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 03:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
In support of @ Brusquedandelion's point, the majority of the article cites a Twitter/X controversy and a single one at that. GoggleGoose ( talk) 05:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The first four references (Wired, Boing Boing, Daily Dot, and Mashable) all seem to show significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:RSPS lists Wired as "generally reliable," Boing Boing as "no consensus on the reliability ... some of its articles are written by subject-matter experts ," Daily Dot as "no consensus regarding the general reliability," and Mashable as "non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine." Elspea756 ( talk) 20:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to 2024 StoneToss controversy or something like that. I don't know whether he can be argued to be notable as a cartoonist, but X's response of aggressively clamping down on efforts to spread the article or even post the subject's name despite it not being per se a TOS violation after StoneToss personally appealed to Musk to do so is definitely getting the kind of coverage to make notability beyond question, especially in light of the apparent double standard regarding deadnaming of trans figures on the platform and Musk's relative inaction in that area. (And if we do do this, we should not publish the subject's name and at least RevDel any previous appearances. I don't care what an execrable human being he probably is, his identity was disclosed without his consent despite his efforts (documented by ACC, no less) to keep it a secret. ACC and all the others spreading it around may have their reasons, and I may agree with them, but Wikipedia does not have to, and should not be, part of this). We can only if he decides to confirm all this and discuss it. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose split the article into two. The 'incident' and the 'webcomic' trainrobber >be me 20:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The “incident” would not pass WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 22:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    They're likely only notable now because of the "incident". I didn't see notability last time about just the webcomic. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose, there's no need for a split. When people are searching for information about this they'll be searching for StoneToss alone. TarnishedPath talk 05:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Comment - In agreement with replies from @ PARAKANYAA, the failure of the subject's notability in the two prior deletion discussions isn't helped with the singular Twitter/X event GoggleGoose ( talk) 05:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Elspea, coverage by RSes has changed since the last nom. 3df ( talk) 21:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. None of these sources show any more notability than the past discussion. They’re all in the context of one event ( WP:BLP1E), him getting doxed, and none of the reliable sources analyze his works. The new sources in existence do not actually discuss what would, hypothetically, be notable about him - the content of his comics. He got doxed, and then people got banned for reporting on it. Add that to the article about controversies relating to Twitter that I’m sure we have. Why would we have an article on an artist, especially a political one, when their works are barely discussed in the sources we have on them? PARAKANYAA ( talk) 22:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
If their works are barely discussed in the sources we have on them, how are we able to have the content found in Special:Permalink/1214892159#Content and reception? — Alalch E. 22:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Looking at the sources in this section,
ADL - passing mention
GNET report - passing mention
GNET - mentions him exclusively in the context of a Reddit conflict with little analysis of what he actually says besides racist
the daily dot - listed as no consensus on reliability; IMO they are not good for notability when it comes to the internet because they have a penchant for covering random internet drama that no other outlet cares about
ECPS - this one is good
CEP - this is an opinion blog PARAKANYAA ( talk) 00:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks, that's a fair analysis, but but this is also SIGCOV: Marlin-Bennett, Renée; Jackson, Susan T (February 9, 2022). "DIY Cruelty: The Global Political Micro-Practices of Hateful Memes". Global Studies Quarterly. 2 (2). doi: 10.1093/isagsq/ksac002. ISSN  2634-3797. Archived from the original on March 21, 2024. Retrieved March 17, 2024. (94 words, goes into intricate detail, discusses the webcomic's impact on certain online communities) — Alalch E. 01:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I'll note to PARAKANYAA and others that it's not necessary that they be notable for "the content of his comics." They can be the author of the least notable comic book on the planet and still be notable for some other reason. Elspea756 ( talk) 02:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There is nothing WP:SIGCOV in the article you linked. A mere three sentences are referring to webcomic out of the whole article, the opposite of "intricate detail". Indeed, the same source was referenced as an example of lack of WP:SIGCOV in prior deletion discussions. GoggleGoose ( talk) 04:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Nah, that's also SIGCOV, and whoever thought it wasn't was just wrong. — Alalch E. 23:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep they are very well known online and on social media, and very controversial as well. rename perhaps? 108.49.72.125 ( talk) 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Rename to what? PARAKANYAA ( talk) 00:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    something like "2024 Stonetoss controversy" like another user suggested or something along those lines 108.49.72.125 ( talk) 02:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Sources 1 and 8 talk about the individual and the Twitter accounts that got banned, and the events around this decision. Likely somewhat more notability now than when I !voted last time, given what's happened. Should be ok for notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I started out editing Wikipedia by successfully deleting dozens of vanity webcomics. This is more notable than all of those combined, backed up with many reliable sources, even before his recent outing. And it's fine to mention the author's name after it has been covered by reliable sources, it's those sources we base our judgement by. The media have a history of unmasking pseudonyms, I think we're overdue a new Banksy or Satoshi Nakamoto outing. - hahnch e n 02:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - We're not here to right great wrongs or to virtue signal, we're here to determine whether a subject meets our standards for inclusion based upon the General Notability Guideline or some focused Special Notability Guideline. This subject in the wake of widespread current coverage in addition to past coverage, clearly does. Fuck the alt right, but that's neither here nor there. Carrite ( talk) 05:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Subject clearly has WP:SIGCOV and passes WP:GNG. We're not here to WP:RGW. We're here to reflect what WP:RS have to say. TarnishedPath talk 05:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: It seems to me, judging by the sources, this comic clearly passes GNG. Di (they-them) ( talk) 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Deletion is not cleanup, and whether to describe him as "neo-Nazi" in Wikivoice is something that should be discussed, rather than used as an argument for deletion. Subject passes WP:GNG, so whether he passes WP:ARTIST or not shouldn't be a relevant factor. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 10:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: By the way, I want to point out that the arguments regarding StoneToss being unimportant to people who aren't "extremely online" or that the article is only about social media usage are unconvincing in my opinion. I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but still, if dril can be a Good Article I don't see why we would need to delete an article on the basis of somebody being a pseudonymous Twitter user. Di (they-them) ( talk) 10:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Clearly passes GNG. Schierbecker ( talk) 14:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Article may need to be reworked but StoneToss as a comic is notable, and there is a lot of news coverage on it. RPI2026F1 ( talk) 14:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's worth noting that the page [24] of the individual named in connection with the article has already been deleted per WP:G10, gross abuse of WP:BLP. As noted in the previous two successful deletion nominations, the subject and its controversy tends to suffer from WP:NPOV and might be the subject to WP:BATTLE. Some users claim no issue with WP:GNG, but as per Wikipedia:Notability (people), which covers biographies of living persons, the relevant criteria is WP:ARTIST and remains unsatisfied. ( WP:GNG specifically links to Wikipedia:Notability (people) in that case). Most of the cited coverage is complaining about the content and not much else. A chartable interpretation might be that the subject is WP:BLP1E for being recently doxed, but the consensus of the prior two deletion discussions is that, on its own, the subject's status is just a controversial twitter user.
MiniMayor98 ( talk) 15:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:SNG do not override WP:GNG, and subject-specific notability guidelines are not requirements if the general one is satisfied. Very explictly, Wikipedia:Notability (people) links to GNG and restates it, saying People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below., and later A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. (emphasis not mine) Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 16:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Can you name which Wikipedia policy says calling a spade a spade is somehow not neutral? If reliable sources are calling Stonetoss a Nazi, I fail to see how that is an NPOV violation. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 03:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: encyclopedically relevant topic with sufficient sourcing already in the article to meet WP:GNG. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 15:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep More than enough ongoing WP:RS-based coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 ( talk) 16:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Multiple reliable sources cover the comic and person behind it, and deletion is not clean up. Justarandomamerican ( talk) Have a good day! 19:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Almost all the article content is about the author's doxxing, and almost all the rest is about alt-right meme culture and Twitter drama generally, of which StoneToss is a small part. On its own, not sufficiently notable as either a cultural force or a webcomic. Candent shlimazel ( talk) 21:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    If the subject is such a small part of it, why is there significant coverage of the webcomic? — Alalch E. 22:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    At present the total article size is 17,220 bytes in size and the section regarding the alleged revelation of their identity is 7,019 bytes in size. Therefore your statement that "[a]lmost all the article content is about the author's doxxing" is plainly incorrect. TarnishedPath talk 01:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    If we want text size alone (no references, templates, etc., just the amount of text content that shows up), that's 4934 bytes and 1889 bytes respectively, so still very far from "almost all". Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 01:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    In any case, not even a good argument for deletion regardless of whether it was even close. TarnishedPath talk 02:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    If we're measuring the text in words and not bytes, like humans who read Wikipedia, doxxing content is 365/779 words, or 46.9%. Not half, but close. Getting doxxed and clowned on by reddit and being a small and relatively uninfluential part of a broad phenomenon – there: that's the whole article – does not make a subject notable. Candent shlimazel ( talk) 11:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Agree with @ Candent shlimazel, as noted in the nom the previous 2 deletion requests could not find notability for an article, and the only update since was a twitter controversy. GoggleGoose ( talk) 05:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I can't quite come to an opinion on deletion or not but Stonetoss is not just "a small part" of alt-right meme culture, he's almost certainly the best known alt-right comic creator nowadays. Alexschmidt711 ( talk) 02:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Sufficient coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG, as noted above. Isi96 ( talk) 00:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There are plenty of good sources here. The naming controversy is the largest single aspect getting coverage but this is far from being BLP1E. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 01:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is just to add that I also oppose any split or rename. There is no distinct second topic here. The comic, its author and his controversies are all aspects of a single topic which is called "StoneToss" and which is the subject of this article. DanielRigal ( talk) 15:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am not seeing any particular evidence to challenge the notability of the subject. Dympies ( talk) 03:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There are enough independent, reliable sources. Their coverage of him as a topic is holistic (the comics, ideology, online influence, previous comics, identity), not in saccade or in relation only to one specific event (re: BLP1E or sporadic coverage concerns). The RS concerns are misstated ("political outlets" is not a reliability categorisation), and so are the BLP concerns (subject denials of labels like "neo-nazi" are not given consideration when deciding neutrality). More subjectively and less policy-based: his cultural "influence" is sustained (duration) and wide enough (leftist attempts to reclaim, and use by Stonetoss of numerous "gateway/radicalization pipeline" memes, like the Bitcoin one, that look innocuous and get widely shared by normies) that having an article seems appropriate. DFlhb ( talk) 04:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Comment Well said. In fact, with reference to the reliability of "political outlets" I would generally treat the SPLC, for example, as more reliable and a greater indicator of notability than general media when addressing notable far-right figures. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose. Statements in your comment are simply incorrect. You state, "subject denials of labels like "neo-nazi" are not given consideration when deciding neutrality" is false. Such a denial, particularly when they appear in secondary sources as noted in the nom, are permissible per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS. This is in addition to the fact that "nazi" is considered a "word to watch" per MOS:LABEL (the WP:BLP concern you glossed over).
    The WP:RS issue also goes beyond simply "misstated" political outlets (neither source was rated by WP:RSP, by the way) . While biased sources are permitted with caution per WP:PARTISAN, they are just one of the issues listed by the nom. It also includes sources that were deemed insufficiently WP:RS in the prior 2 deletion discussions. Again, as now and in the prior deletions, coverage of the subject focuses on drama occurring on social media. GoggleGoose ( talk) 08:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ GoggleGoose, not being rated on WP:RSP is not a statement against a source. To imply that it is displays a fundamental lack of understanding with how WP:RSP and WP:RS/N operate. TarnishedPath talk 08:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I didn't mention it as a statement against a source. I mentioned it to clarify I wasn't doubting a source that might already exist on WP:RSP. GoggleGoose ( talk) 09:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per DFlhb. A normal topic of encyclopedic interest that obviously can be suitably covered.— Alalch E. 14:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's it? At WP:ANI you had written ( diff): Update: I edited the draft, moved it to mainspace based on my editorial judgement, as I found various existing sources, and new significant coverage did materialize in the last few days, then another camel-case-username account appeared from a user who had emailed WMF claiming libel and tagged for G10, Keegan took the tag down, then that user tried to enforce removal leading to 3RRN, leading to a 24h block, but this was then also followed by a CU block. In the meantime, various editors in good standing have seen the article and apparently found no fault with it, and several have edited it. — Alalch E. 11:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) You don't find that pertinent? What happened with the WP:AFC? I read your spartan keep support here, and regardless of the way notability is trending here, I find it lacking. Yes, you have the WP:NPR user right, but from my deletion to your next-day recreation, the timeline seems a bit murky. It'd likely gone unnoticed by me had this not been brought to my attention by another admin, Liz ( diff). So you need to be more upfront with how you operate when it comes to un/deletion of pages involving living persons, Alalch E. El_C 16:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    At some point after making the ANI report I became interested in this topic. When I made the ANI report, I wanted to put a stop to a misuse of Wikipedia. The topic did not seem notable, I found out that there had been AfDs, and thought that we are probably not going to have this article in the foreseeable future. Then, I became interested in the topic simply from being introduced to it. My work on this preexisting draft and the decision to explore developing it into an article is essentially detached from what I saw when I encountered the made-to-troll version of this page which you deleted. And as I was working on the draft, new sources were emerging. Which is completely incidental. I did not predict this medium-size public controversy happening, especially since I am allergic to Twitter and do not follow what is going on there. I started out by adding references to preexisting sources, that already existed at the time of the last AfD, but were either not found or were not assessed properly then. I actually think that the notability of this topic rests on those sources primarily. Ultimately, the content of the page when it was moved to mainspace was completely different from any previous content that was deleted, which I determined by viewing an archived version of a deleted page under this name. Therefore, completely irrespectively of my being a new page patroller, I moved the article as an editorial decision, to enrich the encyclopedia with a new article. I could have marked the article as reviewed as a patroller because I had not created it, but consciously I did not. I anticipated an AfD and AfDs are fine. An AfD is nothing to shy from. My contributions to this article have been very stable and no serious content disputes have emerged since. My approach to this topic has been studious and responsible. And I have a certain view about AfC which I believe to be the only correct view: AfC is optional (the entire draft apparatus is optional— WP:DRAFT: ... creating a Draft version first is optional) and isn't designed to be something else + editors don't need permission to create content, and the only exception to that is when they are technically prevented from doing so through salting and title blacklisting. — Alalch E. 17:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Upon deletion, I pointed to WP:AFC approval, specifically so that there is a record of such a review—a summary—on a page involving a living person that was twice deleted in procedures such as this ( diff). But you have ignored and circumvented that, making that timeline challenging to parse. Do I need to log this caution at WP:AEL to get that point across? I didn't think I needed to, but your response above gives me pause. El_C 17:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I have replied on my talk page. — Alalch E. 18:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The nom has set out in detail the problems with the sources and just been completely ignored. Where is the significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources? Where are the sources covering this prior to the Twitter/X controversy and attempts to reveal the identity of the creator? How can we create an encyclopedic article solely based on media reporting of social media bickering? AusLondonder ( talk) 20:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The complaints of the nom have been responded to in this discussion, and they are mostly frivolous and obviously stand in contrast to the state that the article is in. For example, you say Where are the sources covering this prior to the Twitter/X controversy and attempts to reveal the identity of the creator but this is simply ridiculous and not worth responding to. — Alalch E. 20:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Firstly the nom overstates any issues by trying to muddy the waters on sources for which there is no consensus by claiming that they are "listed as dubious" This is simply incorrect and a misrepresentation of how WP:RSP and WP:RS/N works. A classification of "dubious" is not something that happens at WP:RSP. When RfCs are being run at WP:RS/N on the reliability of sources, "dubious" is not one of the options that is voted for or can be arrived at when a closer determines consensus.
    Secondly even if we only want to rely on sources for which there is no questions about them being WP:GREL, a reference from NBC has been added since the start of this AfD. Therefore there are two in-depth, reliable sources (NBC and Wired). Thus we have "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources".
    Thirdly the references used in the article don't just cover the social media spat, the fact that notability has become more apparent as a result of what occurred is not an argument for deletion. TarnishedPath talk 11:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Support perspective of @ AusLondonder. This article, and the sources that are cited for it have sprung up in connection to a very recent doxing of the subject on twitter. As per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article". This is on top of the fact that the article subject was already deleted after 2 previous deletion discussions for notability issues.
    One user claims the nom is "overstated" for using the phrasing "dubious" when describing some of the citations, however it is perfectly appropriate. While WP:RSP uses the phrase "no consensus on the reliability" for the sources, describing it as "dubious" does not mean "false" or "incorrect". Again, the reliability of some of those same sources were cited as reasoning for the success of previous 2 page deletions. GoggleGoose ( talk) 06:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Please stop bludgeoning the conversation. That's the third !vote you add here, which is frankly inappropriate and gives the appearance that more people are supporting your side than there actually are. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 08:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Reliable sources can talk about anything. They can talk about sports, which is completely trivial. Not only can we discuss these topics, we must. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and oppose split: meets GNG. ( t · c) buidhe 04:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per DFlhb rationale. Issues with RS and POV should be dealt with on talk page, not as part of a deletion process. GNG per SIGCOV from Wired and NBC. Mashable should also be acknowledged as SIGCOV, as there is consensus that the latter's non-sponsored content is "generally fine" within their remit of tech news, which this is. Given previous coverage, can't be considered for BLP1E anymore.
CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 14:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The subject of the article meets WP:GNG. The fact that there may be bias in the article doesn't mean that the article should be deleted - the bias or any wrong facts on the article have to be fixed. Coverage from the Evening Standard, Wired, and MSN is more than enough to establish his notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Neutrality concerns are irrelevant to discussion of deletion. Subject approaches WP:1E, but technically passes it with acceptable sources that predate the event in question. Rᴇɪʟ ( talk) 19:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Neutrality is not relevant here, and there's plenty of good citations for much of the information in the article Freee Contributor ( talk) 11:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but possibly Draftify. I think the other keep !voters have already given good rationales and I mostly agree with them, so there's not much need to add my voice to that. Frankly, I was kind of surprised to see this article nominated for deletion in the first place. That said, I agree that the article is a mess, particularly given the potential BLP concerns, so if it's going to be kept, it definitely needs a lot of cleanup (up to and including the WP:TNT approach). I'm opposed to outright deletion, but I'd be on board with draftifying it. Sleddog116 ( talk) 18:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Something not yet observed in this deletion discussion is an admin admonishing an editor for a deceptive edit that circumvented WP:AFC for this page, which had multiple successful deletion discussions - ( diff) and again ( diff). I have enumerated this and other problems in the Talk Page (also diff for reference).
To reiterate the other issues briefly, they are: reverting good faith edits attempting to prevent MOS:LABEL abuse of WP:BLP; eliminating the subject's url for WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons; and recent news attention drawing users in for a WP:BATTLE that resulted in a WP:G10 deletion of another page and attempts to hide the deletion discussion template on the mainspace, among others.
Minus the edit that was caught by an admin, all of the other issues occurred after the page was already WP:XC protected. This is a WP:NPOV mess. MiniMayor98 ( talk) 21:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
You have not presented any arguments for deletion. TarnishedPath talk 23:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I have and I previously voted for Delete in the discussion above. To clarify, the page suffers from poor WP:NPOV and interference from WP:BATTLE. As another editor suggested, it might be worthy of WP:TNT. This was also the process by which the 1st deletion discussion ended. MiniMayor98 ( talk) 07:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:LASTTIME.
Also, remember to read my comment below (23:43, 26 March 2024) and apologize to me when you can (for saying "deceptive edit"; note that that's your interpretation and the administrator did not say "deceptive"). — Alalch E. 08:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
It was observed, I saw it and responded to it. If you mean "not yet observed" as in editors not yet !voting "delete" based on what is written in that thread, that is something that did not happen because it is not a reason to delete an article, and editors know it. It could happen, as all kinds of comments are possible, and there could indeed be recommendations that the article be deleted because an editor (me) moved this page while it was a draft to article space without submitting through AfC when an administrator pointed to WP:AFC approval. However, these !votes would be discountable as failing to point to a reason to delete a page under Wikipedia's deletion policy, and the consensus to delete could not form around such comments.
You see, when closing deletion discussions, the community's consensus is judged after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue, etc. Were a closing administrator to make such a mistake to delete this page as a page not created through AfC when AfC was indicated because they thought that that was the consensus, that administrator's judgement would be very seriously questioned, and the deletion would be undone via Deletion review. This is not to say that I acted correctly not to use AfC. But the remedy is not deleting the article. It's not about the article as an article, it's about creating an easily attestable proof of good, ordinary, Wikipedia volunteer work. My work was and is good and ordinary, but when I was asked to provide assistance in creating this record, this easily attestable proof (in the form of an AfC pass, and I assure you of this: as I am a reviewer of AfC submissions and am familiar with the process and the requirements, I could hardly face any difficulties in having something I wrote accepted; so it's a formality)—to avoid possible confusion, such as the confusion that can be seen in your comment—I failed to deliver assistance. Not because I did not want to help (I very much want to help and am highly sympathetic to administrators' efforts), but I did not understand what was needed at the moment. The remedy was to warn me, see if I understand the warning and if I am willing to make the needed commitment, which I responded to by making the commitment to follow the guidance given.
Irrespective of this, as none of the above has any bearing on there being or not content issues: There are no content issues. This is a wonderful article, a wonderful educational material that will serve humanity, and a splendid source of free knowledge for generations to come. — Alalch E. 23:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Admin note - I have reverted the early close of this discussion by TarnishedPath, who is involved in the discussion. While this discussion is clearly trending keep, the closer ought to consider that the previous two, rather recent, deletion discussions were strong delete results, and the topic is clearly controversial. Please leave this for an uninvolved closer to evaluate. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks a lot, that closure really shouldn't have happened given how involved the closer was. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 13:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Ivanvector, noted and apologies. TarnishedPath talk 13:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. To me, the subject is notable. A source stating that "no-one outside of extremely online spaces cares" has no bearing on Wikipedia policy. We're not here as activists or to virtue signal, we have to take a level-headed look at the issue of notability.
There is now more significant coverage than when the previous AfDs were opened. This Daily Dot article [ [25]] covers the subject as a person, for example. But many sources refer to him only in the context of the doxing incident, so we have to be wary of WP:BLP1E. I would not oppose renaming the article to focus on this incident.
That said, I believe there is often a shortfall in Wikipedia when primarily internet-famous figures are concerned: our reliance on more "traditional" forms of media here makes very influential people under-represented in sources, despite the internet being very relevant in contemporary discourse. StoneToss has been relevant even outside the far-right bubble for a while now, he just has little coverage in the traditional media we require to have covered him. So, in principle, I am in favor of keeping the article name as it is.
I suggest using the KnowYourMeme entry ([ [26]]) as a source if it can be considered an appropriate one. It lays out facts about the subject in a concise way according to data found through research. As per WP: BOLD I have added it to the page and made other changes defended here, but feel free to revert if needed.
As per WP:BLP policy, I strongly agree that this article should be overhauled to meet WP:NPOV although balanced with the info our WP:RS attest, including referring to him using various derogatory labels. Although I believe including "neo-Nazi" in the lead of the article citing a news article from Wired is a bit much. CVDX ( talk) 16:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
It's also WP:WAPO describing him as such, but I do see your point none the less. For such a contentious MOS:LABEL I'm not convinced two reliable sources are enough as per best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources. This also comes under MOS:OPENPARABIO and doesn't necessarily reflect the balance of reliable sources, even if helps to establish notability. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 17:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Agreed, for the time being I have removed the "neo-Nazi" label. Later we can look more closely at the sources, when the WP:BATTLE ends. CVDX ( talk) 19:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Call me up when it ends so I can join you. Having me on the team is an absolute asset when it comes to checking sources. First dibs on calling what we will look at first: The first source that we will look more closely at will be the reference to WP:KNOWYOURMEME, a WP:UGC website which you added in Special:Diff/1215875130, by consensus listed as a generally unreliable source, meaning: questionable in most cases. ... should never be used for information about a living person. — Alalch E. 23:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The KnowYourMeme source should definitely be discussed, but I genuinely don't think the AfD is the best place to talk about this. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 00:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Of course, the imaginary and imputed battle is certainly expected to continue for some time after the AfD has been closed. — Alalch E. 00:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I think that's the good moment for a reminder to WP:AGF. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 00:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
While I would definitely support that we should all assume good faith I also think the claims that the page is a battleground seem over-salted somewhat. It's a fraught and contentious issue, yes, but I do think the recent multiple RFCs on the page have demonstrated that everybody there, aside from a few WP:NOTHERE trolls who have effectively been removed, is perfectly willing to collaborate. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Chaotic Enby, I'm not sure what there is to discuss? WP:KNOWYOURMEME is WP:GUNREL per consensus at WP:RS/N and therefor it doesn't belong in a BLP under any circumstances and that's the end of the analysis. Is there something I'm missing? TarnishedPath talk 05:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
No, I agree with you, I was just thinking that it could be discussed in case some people would disagree with the removal. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 13:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Surely that's already been conveyed to them? TarnishedPath talk 21:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Virtual Database Manager

Virtual Database Manager (  | talk | history | 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 highly dubious of the presentation of this content. It strikes me as an advertisement for a product disguised as a description of a technology. It also manages to pack in a lot of unsourced description and terminology that is opaque to the non-programmer, but which strikes me as overly promotional in tone. BD2412 T 15:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was draftify‎. (non-admin closure) voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Copyleaks

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

Questioning whether the company has WP:SIGCOV for WP:NCORP. Sources generally list a variety of detection tools and are not primarily about Copyleaks. Suggesting a merge into Artificial intelligence content detection. (Disclosure, I have rejected the article in draft form once) IgelRM ( talk) 15:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Connecticut. IgelRM ( talk) 15:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Draftify: Good number of reliable sources, and if consensus is that subject is not notable now, I think its highly likely the consensus would be that they are in the future. Comintell ( talk) 18:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Source review for demonstration:
    • New York Times, "Another Side of the AI Boom: Detecting What AI Makes": A feature on detecting AI generated content, questionable SIGCOV.
    • Fox News, "AI platform CEO talks new tech detecting plagiarism following Harvard scandal: 'As prevalent as ever'" Primarily an interview.
    • Forbes Staff, "New Tool Can Tell If Something Is AI-Written With 99% Accuracy": Same as one
    • BBC News, "How to spot an AI cheater": Same as one
    IgelRM ( talk) 01:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Draftify: might be WP:TOOSOON. Most articles are passing mentions and listicles. Royal88888 ( talk) 07:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Requesting speedy draftification of this one, I think this subject has merit, and want to be able to take time to improve it.
Comintell ( talk) 18:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Uniting Nations. ✗ plicit 14:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Craig Powell (musician)

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

Solo career and martial arts career have no notability, should be deleted and info added to Uniting Nations InDimensional ( talk) 14:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Abdul Ghaffar Mauwi

Abdul Ghaffar Mauwi (  | talk | history | 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 satisfy WP:GNG. It should have been sent back to AfC for improvements with respect to notability. The sources cited do not help.─ Aafī (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. ─ Aafī (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Poor sources and mostly unreliable with no notable coverage on the subject. The subject does not seem to warrant a biographical page because of no significant, interesting, or unusual enough coverage to deserve attention or to be recorded. Per nom fails WP:GNG. RangersRus ( talk) 13:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Not even close to meeting WP:GNG with absolutely no significant coverage. Sources just make passing mentions in questionable sources. Sk1728 ( talk) 10:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Prabath Ruwan

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

The subject of the article doesn't appear to meet GNG. This player made a single international appearance and played domestically in Sri Lanka. The article is sourced only to a database. I can find some articles mentioning his name in passing but I see no significant coverage. MarchOfThe Greyhounds 13:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Although there is no second "delete" opinion, the "keep" opinions - with the exception of that by GMH Melbourne - are poorly argued: they assert notability, but do not cite specific sources or address the quality of the sources offered by others, which has been contested. Sandstein 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Alison Green

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

There is a lack of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources that discuss the subject in depth. The current cited sources include passing mentions, a contributor piece, and an announcement of her inclusion in the 100 Women of Influence 2016 list, which does not automatically confer notability. Although a Google news search yielded some sources, they primarily consist of passing mentions or self-published materials, none of which establish independent notability. GSS  💬 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/headdd-20170424-gvrdku.html Yes Yes Newspaper of record Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.afr.com/women-of-influence/why-networking-is-vital-when-starting-a-company-20190717-p52851 ~ Basically just quotes. Yes ~ Rather short section of the article. ~ Partial
https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2016/10/05/79021/green-recognised-on-women-of-influence-list/ Yes Yes No Routine. ✘ No
https://apacentrepreneur.com/magazine-digital/vol-11-issue-10.html#features/11 No paid promotion as noted by Scottyoak2 ? Doesn't seem to be an established magazine? Yes ✘ 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}}.
TLA tlak 16:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The Sydney Morning Herald piece is an interview, hence it should not be considered an independent source article appears to be an interview-style piece with a "he said, she said" format, and it requires a subscription to access the entire content. Additionally, the Australian Financial Review article is published by a non-staff contributor and should be treated as self-published sources, similar to many at WP:RSP. GSS  💬 17:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I evaluated my sources according to SIRS and wrote the content around this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you approved these sources. No offense, I just really want to understand what has changed since then. Fact and Curious ( talk) 17:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
No, in fact, I never approved these sources, which is why I declined your submission. These sources do not establish notability because they do not provide the required coverage for the subject, as pointed out above. GSS  💬 17:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The draft was just accepted today, I thought the editor's approval depends on the appropriateness of the sources. GSS suggested de-orphaning the page and improving the categories. I made these changes but now I'm a bit confused, was the fix that bad?
Also, I found another source that mentioned the subject, but just in case, I removed it now if it was causing the problem. Fact and Curious ( talk) 17:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep : if these are the same person [27] and [28], I think we have notability. Australian person in the New York Times could be possible I suppose. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Good work digging that up. NYT is an international publication, so it's squarely within their breadth. TLA tlak 20:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Oaktree b: The article from The New York Times seems to be an opinion piece, as it focuses not on the individual herself but rather on her views, evident in the frequent use of phrases such as "saying" and "said". Conversely, The Cut article is written by a different "Alison Green" and is unrelated to the subject of this article self-published, bearing the name "by Alison Green". GSS  💬 04:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Umm, no. That NYT columnist is not the subject of this article. That columnist (born abt. 1974), is the daughter of an American journalist named, Steve Green, who died in 2001. The subject of this discussion (born 1986) is the daughter of John M. Green. — Scottyoak2 ( talk) 04:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Ah, well spotted. Thank you for your attentive review. @ Oaktree b:, considering these findings, it may be worth reevaluating. 04:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Honestly, without the two sources I listed above, I'm not sure. I can't really !vote one way or another. Struck my prior vote/comment, just going to sit this one out, so to speak. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: There are enough sources that exist (both in and out of the article) to establish notability under WP:GNG. I have found 4. Plus also I think it is safe to say the AFR article counts towards GNG. It is more than just quotes and SIGCOV refers to the substance of a source (ie. a passing mention) rather than the length of a source. GMH Melbourne ( talk) 00:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ GMH Melbourne: I agree that there are articles, but simply having them doesn't automatically make someone notable; they should provide significant coverage, not just passing mentions or interviews. As mentioned before, the AFR article is written by a contributor. Can you please list the four articles here for review? Just saying you found four isn't enough; they need to be shown for proper consideration. GSS  💬 04:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    These are the sources I have found (not already in the article) that count towards WP:GNG: [29] [30] + the AFR and SMH ones already mentioned. I understand that this is a borderline article but I think there is enough to meet GNG with at least two sources that qualify. GMH Melbourne ( talk) 01:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for providing the sources. To pass GNG, the subject needs coverage in independent, reliable sources. While the sources you mentioned are undoubtedly reliable, but they lack independence, so let's examine them closely. As I mentioned earlier, the article by ARF was authored by a contributor, not staff. According to WP:RSP, there's a consensus that such sources lack independence and should be treated as self-published. The SMH piece you mentioned is an interview, which is also not independent.
    Now, let's discuss the two links you provided. The first one by ARF isn't about the subject of this AfD. The article includes comments from multiple people and heavily relies on their words. Similarly, the one from the Daily Telegraph heavily depends on phrases like "he said" and "she said". Since they aren't independent, they are insufficient to establish notability. GSS  💬 04:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - This is within WP:GNG. Good sourcing. Period. BabbaQ ( talk) 13:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ BabbaQ:, could you please highlight which sources you believe are good? Numerous sources are discussing a different individual with the same name, leading to confusion. Additionally, there are a few sources consisting of interviews. Thank you. GSS  💬 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems some disagreement on the suitability of the source material. Additional analysis on this point would be very useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This discussion was relisted twice in the same day so consider this the second, not third, relisting. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think the subject is notable and there are sources to demonstrate that. Nathan N Higgers ( talk) 02:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) — Nathan N Higgers ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    Just stating "there are sources" doesn't actually establish anything. You need to specify which sources, because as I mentioned above and in my deletion rationale, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. While there are some sources, they aren't about this person, but about a different person under the same name. Additionally, it is suspicious that you were registered today and your first edit was to !vote here, so I highly suspect there is a case of WP:PAID and/or socking. GSS  💬 05:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Names of India in its official languages

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

It's basically a big list of unref'd translations, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. An alternative to deletion might be a merge to Names for India. PepperBeast (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge This seems to be reasonable information to have in that article. Reywas92 Talk 02:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    It is not reasonable, and in fact against the spirit of WP:NOINDICSCRIPT. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 04:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; Names for India already exists, and unlike this article it at least tries to be more than a laundry list of dictionary entries. And no, not merge, delete. See WP:INDICSCRIPTS as to why a merge is unwarranted. We don't need to enumerate the name of every Indian topic in every one of its many scripts, and we have a policy in place specifically to guard against such tedium. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 04:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree it is more of an enumeration of dictionary entries rather than an article. Imranqazi90 ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte ( talk) 09:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Linux for PlayStation 2

Linux for PlayStation 2 (  | talk | history | 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. There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk) 12:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep I found SIGCOV in PSM magazine, Linux Voice magazine and Official AUS PlayStation magazine as well as a New York Times article about how scientists made a PS2-based supercomputer, which I believe utilized the Linux for PS2 adapter kit. It also got a Eurogamer article and WIRED article among other things. The argument that there are no independent sources is totally incorrect and fails WP:CSK#3. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    This article has been unmaintained for a long time. Could you, please, add those references to the article, so other editors can validate those references? Mdggdj ( talk) 14:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    That would be a more citations needed template tag. The article may be poor but the PlayStation feature is probably relevant or at least possible to merge into PS2 article. IgelRM ( talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    It's not the responsibility of AfD participants to fix the article to make it notable. See WP:NOEFFORT. All that has to be proven is that the article can be improved and is also not immediately WP:NOT, which it isn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 15:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - In addition to the above, a quick search online shows quite a few independent sources. GBooks alone for example has significant coverage in books on topics like computer science, political science, and a Spanish Programación para PlayStation 2 for Dummies book. Notability requires the existence of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not that they be in the article at the time of nomination. - Aoidh ( talk) 13:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Feels like the nominator did not perform WP:BEFORE. Sufficient sources have already been presented. AFD is not cleanup. -- ferret ( talk) 14:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Very threadbare nom with the nom actively removing content instead of trying to find further sources (which I've reverted; don't do this before the end of the nomination, Mdggdj.). Nate • ( chatter) 20:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The research done by zxcvbnm proves that the article is notable and can meet WP:THREE if and when the sources are inserted in the article. The article does meet WP:GNG and as opposed to what IgelRM has stated saying that the article could be merged into the PlayStation 2 article, I feel the article requires it's mainspace and does not need to be merged. MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk) 06:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Lionel Cristiano ? 19:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Ashutosh (spiritual leader)

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

The subject of this Wikipedia article appears not to meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:GNG. Coverage primarily revolves around the individual's sudden death from cardiac arrest and controversial remarks regarding Sikhism and Sikh gurus, which sparked violent clashes between his followers and certain Sikh groups resulting in fatalities. this incident garnered media attention, but it does not inherently confer notability. Media often sensationalize and report on contentious events. Nearly all the sources in this article zero in on this event, with no secondary, independent, reliable sources found that delve into the subject beyond this incident. The first reference, a YouTube video posted by Divya Jyoti Jagrati Sansthan, an organization founded by the subject, is a primary source and lacks independence from the subject. Furthermore, the article has been subject to persistent conflicts of interest, disruptive editing, and repeated attempts by parties with vested interests to shape its content to fit a particular agenda. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS or a platform for advancing personal agendas. and claims like "His followers believe him to be alive and in a state of samadhi or deep meditation. Since January 2014, his body has been kept in a freezer by the management of DJJS, with a firm belief that he will come out of meditation", referenced to their own official YouTube channel do not meet the GNG standards. No GNG worthy sources found & individual fails the stringent criteria of WP:GNG & WP:BLP1E. Nitish shetty ( talk) 11:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Per nominator and comments above. Sk1728 ( talk) 11:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Complejo Municipal

Complejo Municipal (  | talk | history | 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 refs on the page for many years. Seems unlikely that a stadium for a lower league team is notable but would be interested if anyone else can find sources that meet the GNG standard JMWt ( talk) 09:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete? Is this title too ambiguous?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete unreferenced TheGreatestLuvofAll ( talk) 13:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • delete partially be cause of the ambiguity but also because I seriously doubt the coordinates are correct, as they do not point to a stadium, but to a playing field behind a school. Without that, there really isn't anything to merge anyway. Mangoe ( talk) 22:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 11:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Casiano Mba

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

Fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find anything remotely resembling WP:SIGCOV. Robby.is.on ( talk) 09:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to M.O.N.T. (non-admin closure) voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Bitsaeon

Bitsaeon (  | talk | history | 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 wanted to redirect but decide to AFD so that a consensus will be made. The article was typically based on M.O.N.T including if not all the sources. The article didn't pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I AFD it to he WP:TOOSOON and per WP: MUSICBIO may need to be redirected to the article M.O.N.T. For WP:PRESERVE, Like the singing competition may be fixed variably and optionally, though he may not meet. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 09:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. After almost a month, there is no consensus here, especially when considering changes made to the article Eddie891 Talk Work 15:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Taras Sokolyk

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

WP:BLP of a political organizer, not properly sourced as having a genuinely strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. As currently written, the main notability claim here is that he exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of strong evidence that he would pass WP:GNG -- and while this is a pared-back version of an article that's been moderately longer in the past, I can't revert to older versions as they contained criminal allegations that can't be in the article at all without airtight sourcing for them, and might still just make him a WP:BLP1E anyway.
So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody wants to write a substantial article and source it properly, but the scandal can't be in the article at all without solid sourcing for it, and he just doesn't have any other meaningful notability claims if this is all that can be said about him outside of the scandal. Bearcat ( talk) 06:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 06:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Bearcat - clearly fails GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 21:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Per WP:HEY. Also by 2008 he was CEO of a major Canadian hotel chain, so not BLP1E, although that wouldn't apply anyway given the sustained years-long coverage of the vote-rigging scandal. Central and Adams ( talk) 02:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Being CEO of a hotel company still isn't "inherently" notable in its own right just because you can minimally verify the fact — to become a notability claim that would secure inclusion in Wikipedia, that work would still have to be supported by a lot more ongoing "career" coverage about it than you've added here. Bearcat ( talk) 14:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there have been major improvements and sourcing to the article since its nomination which haven't been assessed here in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for discussing the changes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 08:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Haritha Gogineni

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

Topic is not meeting WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 07:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Abtin Abassi

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 07:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nomination
GoggleGoose ( talk) 12:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Maker here. Meets GNG because article in The Telegraph / British GQ / Vice / more I will keep finding. I will try to add more Deondernemers ( talk) 02:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Article by GQ here is a paid piece, the second source by The Telegraph is self-published here. I doubt the Genuity of the other sources as well. Jamiebuba ( talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This Forbes citation is unreliable an written by a contributor. According to @Jamiebuba, the British GQ article is also a paid one. Promotional theme failing business related guideline. No GNG. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 14:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:CSK #4. ✗ plicit 06:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Sawani (company)

Sawani (company) (  | talk | history | 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. Macbeejack ☎ 05:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. ✗ plicit 06:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of golf video games

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NLIST. TWOrantulaTM ( enter the web) 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Golf. TWOrantulaTM ( enter the web) 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If this list isn't notable, then Lists of sports video games and everything in it are not notable either and should likely have all been bundled together. However, I believe it does pass NLIST as sports video games are a notable subject. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:LISTN can be met, even if it's not currently shown in the article. Did you do WP:BEFORE? Here are a few reliable sources covering the group: [33], [34], [35] (Well, sports, to zxcvbnm's point, but related), [36] (SI comparing different golf video games), [37] (A situational, but here it is), [38] (More group coverage), [39], [40], [41] ... and so on. -- ferret ( talk) 14:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Valid navigational list. Category:Golf video games exist, and list are more useful than categories, more information able to be shown. We need to make the list guideline more obvious since this keeps coming up for years now. Dream Focus 17:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but damn does it ever need some serious cleanup. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 20:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The sources provided above show that the topic of this list is widely-covered by reliable sources as a group or set in both the golf world and the video game world, satisfying WP:NLIST criteria. Left guide ( talk) 21:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Ferret's sources. The list is not very well sourced at the moment, but the article as a whole meets the WP:NLIST criteria. Conyo14 ( talk) 22:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Most of the article includes notable games. There could be some chances for doing a small cleanup. Dympies ( talk) 02:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep The article is properly sourced, and it does meet WP:NLIST. I see no reason for deletion. MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk) 05:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
This vote is a little suspect, @ MKsLifeInANutshell. Pretty much ever !Keep agrees the article is not properly sourced. Did you actually look? We're headed to a keep regardless but you need to be doing a proper evaluation before !voting. -- ferret ( talk) 13:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the whole premise of this nomination puzzles me. The claim is that it fails NLIST. NLIST would generally be satisfied when reliable sources discuss a similar grouping of subjects. Do you mean to tell me that your belief is that publications have never written any articles about the incredibly common subject of golf video games. I get the concern when editors write these bizarre lists like "Platform games featuring animals and time travel", but why would one think a common sports video games wouldn't have coverage out there? Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per ferret Grahaml35 ( talk) 01:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Rather than a third relist, I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Cheryl Ruddock

Cheryl Ruddock (  | talk | history | 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 artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WP:BEFORE does not call up any RS for this artist. I am not finding any sources for claims of being in collections. The article, as currently written, has 4 dead links. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 02:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST, dead links not necessarily a problem, but all refs seem to be local news/gallery. No evidence of widespread/national level exhibition or recognition. Hemmers ( talk) 14:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes WP:BASIC, if not the artist-specific criteria. Have added multiple sources to the article, including this review in a local Ontario newspaper. Her reputation really is as one of the top artists from Guelph, but at least her work is also acknowledged in publications in other parts of Ontario. If this article is not kept, I would suggest a merge and redirect with her husband Nicholas Ruddock's bio, even though their careers are in completely different spheres of work; they have been married for nearly 50 years and there is a lot of coverage about that as well since he likes to talk about it. (It would seem like a more natural fit to combine their bios, if they were both artists or both novelists. For this reason as well, I think it makes more sense to keep her article separate.) Regarding the collections holding her work, there is plenty of secondary coverage accessible via ProQuest that verifies this one by one; it would just take some time to add it back to the article. I came across many snippets of critics assessing/commenting on her work as well in newspapers from the mid-1980s through to her more recent exhibitions, which could be added to the section on "Reception". Cielquiparle ( talk) 06:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful at this point to get some feedback about article improvements that have been made since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Sources are too local, I don't think she's at notability for artists. She doesn't seem to have gathered much attention from the national press in Canada. Guelph is a lower mid sized city in Ontario, so she has some local notability, but it's not Ottawa or Toronto. I don't see her works having been displayed at the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto, the McMaster in Hamilton or any of the national Galleries in Ottawa. I suspect she might not be notable (for our purposes) until after she passes away and the wider art community takes notice. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: She's in the permanent collection of the Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery [42], a regional museum. Does that add to notability? I'm somewhat out of my wheelhouse on this one. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don't think that meets presumed criteria under WP:NARTIST. Criterion 4d would suggest it is necessary to be part of the permanent collection of several notable galleries. Is Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery notable? It has no page and is regional, but even if we grant that it is, this is just one collection. We need several. I think we should be looking at BASIC and ANYBIO. Cielquiparle asserts they meet BASIC, citing one review. The review is occasioned by an exhibition at Glenhyrst Art Gallery. I do not see how that rises above a primary source, tbh. She is an artist, she has an exhibition, and someone writes about the exhibition - which is reporting. Any artist with an exhibition will get that much.
    Put another way, if all we had was that article, what could we really say about the artist? What is an article built on?
    I haven't entered a !vote here because I have not satisfied myself that no secondary sources can be found, but I don't see any that have been presented to date. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 16:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
A review is not a primary source. A gallery announcing an exhibit is a primary source, but a review is secondary by definition, if it is in fact independent. Anyway there are more sources in the article. Cielquiparle ( talk) 17:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The art is the primary source and the review of the art is indeed secondary by definition. But as with all sources, whether a source is primary or secondary often depends on the question being asked. It is secondary for the art, but reporting of an artist's exhibition is primary for the artist. If it goes beyond reporting then it may be secondary for the artist too. But as I said, Put another way, if all we had was that article, what could we really say about the artist? What is an article built on? That is the real question. I'll take a look at the other sources in the article. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Being represented in the Canada Council Art Bank (confirmed) has some heft, and along with the other collections, I believe she passes WP:NARTIST. Curiocurio ( talk) 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I said I would look at the other references in the article. Quite a lot of them are dead. There are a few that contain information that could be used to write about her, such as [43], but these write ups used in exhibitions tend to be written by the artist themself. As such they are inot independent. I looked at her CV [44] and this largely confirms Oaktree b's comments. However, per Curiocurio, the public collections at the end does mention Canada Council Art Bank among others. I am leaning delete, but would sway to keep if I believed NARTIST criterion 4 was met:

    The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

    I think the Canada Council Art Bank is definitely one, but we need several. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
She is in several. I don't see what the problem is with the Art Gallery of Hamilton, as Hamilton is not a small city. I also confirmed the Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery and Glenhyrst in Brant. The University of Guelph site is under construction so couldn't be confirmed. Curiocurio ( talk) 13:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Also she has her own entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Artists which could technically be interpreted as satisfying WP:ANYBIO #3 (broadly construed). Cielquiparle ( talk) 06:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
From my reading of it, I believe the Canadian equivalent would be Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Nothing lesser if the source is to be used to establish presumptive notability. Graywalls ( talk) 15:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - It is borderline, but I am out of my expertise here, and so I think I should give the benefit of the doubt to keeping the article. There does, on the face of it, appear to be reason to believe she is more than just regionally notable. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Presbyterian Church in Korea (YeJangHapBo)

Presbyterian Church in Korea (YeJangHapBo) (  | talk | history | 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 don't want to individually nominate every page in [[Category:Presbyterian denominations in South Korea]], even though none of them seem individually notable. It would flood the AfD log, so consider this a stand-in nomination since there's not really a way to nominate multiple articles at once with Twinkle. Drowssap SMM 01:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Lean delete for this specific article, but skeptical of the other deletions. There's not much online that I can find about this branch; here's an article in a major South Korean Christian newspaper that I think is about it: [45]. However, I think it's likely this and other branches are covered in detail in Korean-language academic sources that are behind paywalls or are in print. The Presbyterian Church in South Korea is infamously fractured and is well studied.
The larger branches especially should not be deleted. Here's an article in The Chosun Ilbo about the Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDong) and Presbyterian Church of Korea (TongHap): [46]. Another in Kukmin Ilbo about TongHap: [47].
Tl;dr the deletion proposals I think need to be individually made, with searches in the Korean language. toobigtokale ( talk) 08:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the source identified above is about it and the size of the membership suggests there should be more coverage, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Taipei Language Institute

Taipei Language Institute (  | talk | history | 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 SIGCOV. Existing citations are primary sources, social media and simple listings. Northern Moonlight 05:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Jia, Yimin 贾益民, ed. (2016). 世界华文教育年鉴（2015） [World Chinese Education Yearbook (2015)] (in Chinese). Beijing: Social Sciences Literature Press. p. 376. ISBN  978-7-509-78633-8. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "中华语文研习所(Taipei Language Institute, TLI) 1956年成立于美国新泽西州, 原名“基督教语文学院”,同年9月于台北建校,教学对象以赴台传教士为主,希望 透过华语学习,使在台传教士能快速融入台湾地区生活。1958年更名为“台北语文 学院”,是世界上第一所华语教会学校。1959年,TLI与美国国务院签署了长达20年 的代训合约,负责培训美国在台外交官、美军顾问团的华语能力。1976年,该校改 名为“中华语文研习所”,保留TLI的英文名称。自1996年开始,TLI开始向外扩 展,相继在北京、上海、东京、多伦多、香港、纽约、旧金山、新德里等地成立分 校, ..."

      From Google Translate: "Taipei Language Institute (TLI) was founded in 1956 in New Jersey, USA, formerly known as "Christian Language Institute". It was established in Taipei in September of the same year. Its teaching targets are mainly missionaries who went to Taiwan, hoping to learn through Chinese language. This enables missionaries in Taiwan to quickly integrate into life in Taiwan. In 1958, it was renamed "Taipei Chinese Language College" and was the first Chinese-speaking church school in the world. In 1959, TLI signed a 20-year training contract with the U.S. State Department, responsible for training the Chinese language skills of U.S. diplomats and U.S. military advisory groups in Taiwan. In 1976, the school was renamed "Chinese Language Institute", retaining the English name of TLI. Since 1996, TLI has begun to expand outward and has successively established branches in Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo, Toronto, Hong Kong, New York, San Francisco, New Delhi and other places ..."

    2. Lai, Mingde 賴明德 (2013). 臺灣華語文教育發展史 [The Development History of Chinese Language Education in Taiwan] (in Chinese). New Taipei: National Academy for Educational Research. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Google Books.

      The book notes on page 20: "臺北語文學院 TLI (Taipei Language Institute) 創立於 1956 年 6 月美國紐澤西州,原名「基 3 督教語文學院」, 9 月在臺灣建校。創辦人美籍安篤思牧師( Rev. Egbert W. Andrews )及中華民國籍何景賢先生。開辦之初,是為培訓在臺灣外籍傳教士研習中華語文,了解中華文化。由於教學績效顯著,深受外籍人士嚮往,遂於 1958 年更名為「臺北語文學院」- TLI ( Taipei Language Institute )。 1959 年 TLI 即與美國國務院簽訂合約,負責代訓美國在臺外交人員,包括美國駐華大使館、美軍顧問團及臺灣協防司令部官員和眷屬的華語文研習,長達二十年。"

      From Google Translate: "Taipei Language Institute TLI (Taipei Language Institute) was founded in June 1956 in New Jersey, USA. Its original name was "Christian Language Institute". It was established in Taiwan in September. The founders are Rev. Egbert W. Andrews, an American, and Mr. He Jingxian, a Chinese national. When it was first founded, it was to train foreign missionaries in Taiwan to learn Chinese language and understand Chinese culture. Due to its remarkable teaching performance, it was highly desired by foreigners, so in 1958 it was renamed "Taipei Language Institute" - TLI (Taipei Language Institute). In 1959, TLI signed a contract with the U.S. Department of State and was responsible for training U.S. diplomats in Taiwan, including Chinese language training for officials and their families of the U.S. Embassy in China, the U.S. Army Advisory Group, and the Taiwan Assistance Defense Command, for twenty years."

    3. Kubler, Cornelius C. (2002). "Learning Chinese in China: Programs for Developing Superior- to Distinguished-Level Chinese-Language Proficiency in China and Taiwan". In Leaver, Betty Lou; Shekhtman, Boris (eds.). Developing Professional-Level Language Proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 107. ISBN  0-521-81657-2. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Taipei Language Institute (TLI). Founded in Taipei in 1955 to train American missionaries to the SD level in Mandarin and Taiwanese, TLI has since expanded to serve increasing numbers of non-missionary students from all over the world, in particular diplomatic and business personnel assigned to Taiwan, their family members, and foreign university students. There are currently over 1,000 students at TLI's five branch schools in Taiwan. Courses at TLI, which may be full-time or part-time, typically consist of a combination of small-group classes of 2-6 students and tutorials. A rather rigorous audiolingual method is employed, especially at the beginning and intermediate levels. TLI has compiled many of its own materials but, beginning ..."

    4. Thompson, Richard J. (July 1991). "Chinese Language Study Abroad in the Summer, 1990. Final Report" (PDF). Center for Applied Linguistics. pp. 13–14. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.

      The article notes: "The Taipei Language Institute (TLI) (main site) is located in downtown Taipei at an easy to reach location. It has facilities in other parts of the island as well. It appears well organized and staffed with competent teachers. TLI is by far the largest of all of the Chinese language programs, with an estimated 400-450 American students at its four sites. It is also, by all accounts one of the most flexible programs of study. Private or group instruction can be arranged on short notice on an intensive or non-intensive basis. As a result, a fairly diversified student body can be found here. Although there is no student housing at the Institute's main site, ample housing is available at the YMCA, the International Student Youth Center, or through private home stays."

    5. Less significant coverage:
      1. Ling, Vivian (2018). "The Cornell Program of 1956–63 and the founding of IUP". In Ling, Vivian (ed.). The Field of Chinese Language Education in the U.S.: A Retrospective of the 20th Century. New York: Routledge. ISBN  978-1-138-50201-7. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Google Books.

        The book notes in a footnote: "Formally the Missionary Language Institute, later it secularized and become the Taipei Language Institute."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Taipei Language Institute ( traditional Chinese: 中華語文研習所; simplified Chinese: 中华语文研习所) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 11:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination has been withdrawn, sources added to the article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Poo Vaasam

Poo Vaasam (  | talk | history | 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 film is obscure, undersourced and fails WP:NFILM. In fact the producer's son said, "even I don’t remember much of that film". Kailash29792 (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, nominator has withdrawn their nomination but there are still a variety of arguments over what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 06:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Karthik Naralasetty

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

Karthik Naralasetty has some sources on his life and company, a 30 under 30 article and some promotional content, he won an award 13 years ago, I don't think it provides SIGCOV or establishes GNG.

I was going to PROD this article until I found that it not only has been PROD'd but has had two previous AFDs, one closed as Delete, the second as No consensus. The article on his company, SocialBlood was Soft Deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialblood. I thought it was time to reexamine this article and consider whether it meets the stricter standards of today's Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

GoggleGoose ( talk) 12:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Closing as keep per clear consensus on the established notability. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 04:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

2015 Tel Aviv bus stabbing attack

2015 Tel Aviv bus stabbing attack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

10 of the 11 sources are from January 2015 when this event happened. No fatalities or WP:LASTING effects to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 02:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - it is in the category of prominent crimes in Israel. It is well-referenced.-- FeralOink ( talk) 16:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    It is only well referenced at time of event, needs persistent, lasting coverage to meet WP:EVENT. Not really a prominent crime is no one died. LibStar ( talk) 03:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Well-sourced event that passes Wikipedia:EVENTCRITERIA. For good and bad, Israelis have a long memory and write about such events time and again in books and articles. It's still early for that. gidonb ( talk) 21:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    9 years after where is the WP:LASTING coverage? 10 of the 11 sources are from the time of the event. LibStar ( talk) 03:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
You mean references. Your nomination sure is focused on what is in the article! It shouldn't be. Here is a second source from another moment. gidonb ( talk) 04:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
from March 2015, barely 2 months after the incident. LibStar ( talk) 08:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
"Israelis have a long memory and write about such events time and again in books and articles." So where are the books and articles about this event and its impacts to meet WP:EVENT. Please read WP:LASTING as well. LibStar ( talk) 08:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
"Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable." LibStar ( talk) 08:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I responded to your comment and went to sleep to find three more comments under my comment. So next there will be nine? And this happened not only under my opinion. You now argue with literally every person who does not agree with you, and that is everyone, in total defiance of WP:BLUDGEON and WP:REPEAT. What is going on LibStar?
This is why the arguments are bad: [1.] Your AfD is focused on references (which you called sources). This is in defiance of WP:NEXIST. You say that there 10 references from the time of the event in the article and one that is from a later time and therefore the article should be deleted. Well, that doesn't matter yet following your logic I brought an extra source that is later than the event and that should have sufficed. By your logic. [2.] Next, your argument becomes a moving target. Suddenly later sources are no good anymore, you complained it was 10-1, and now it is 10-2, yet suddenly the sources need to be from even later. You ask where are these even later sources. Under everyone's opinion. I'll address that as well. News is quick. The source that I brought was a 2-months later history of the event, not just news. Other histories take time to be written. Let's consider a security event from way back so we will have enough historical perspective. I will pick the Ein Ofarim killings because I participated in the debate and remember the debate well. In Ein Ofarim, three Israeli security guards, securing a drilling site, were murdered. All of them happened to be Druze. The event occurred in September 1956. When the article was nominated for deletion in 2022, there was one reference from 2022 in the article. A history. The Israeli archives suck (well, still they're better than nothing), yet I was able to find more sources and after the fact stick these in the article as well. Now in the article, you will find news reports from September 1956 and histories from 1963, 1964, 1992, 1988, and 2002. This means that while on average, a relevant history is written every decade, there can be also gaps of nearly 30 years. The important part is the principle, which I already laid out: For good and bad, Israelis have a long memory and write about such events time and again in books and articles. It's still early for that. gidonb ( talk) 23:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. So we should wait for 30 years before considering this article for deletion? The fact there are 10 sources indicate this is perhaps WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar ( talk) 23:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
This is not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument at all. An OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument would be if I would assign importance to the fact that another article was kept. I DO NOT! I'm explaining to you with an example of an event that happened a long time ago that it takes time for history to be written. And even then, the source that I added is a HISTORICAL SOURCE that looks back at the event! gidonb ( talk) 00:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
so should we ban AfDs for 30 years on all Israeli event articles? LibStar ( talk) 00:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
No. Some AfDs make sense. This nomination is not one of them. And here is a source that discusses the event in 2016. Almost 2 years after it happened. It totally debunks your argument once again! In other words, the subject of this AfD should be kept by WP:EVENTCRITERIA, WP:LASTING, WP:EFFECT, and WP:NOTNEWS! gidonb ( talk) 00:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Significant coverage by reliable sources. The number of fatalities is irrelevant to the question of notability. Marokwitz ( talk) 11:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Did the attack have any WP:EFFECT as evidenced by persistent coverage well after the event? LibStar ( talk) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As a significant event with numerous reliable sources. Hogo-2020 ( talk) 07:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Zhuan Zhu

Zhuan Zhu (  | talk | history | 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 and BIO1E applies. I could find pre-Wikipedia sources like this and this but they only mention him as the assassin of King Liao. This seemingly can't be draftified and redirects are costly. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • There seems to be a number of sources at the Japanese and Chinese Wikipedias - have any of those been checked? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 00:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • This is frankly an odd nomination. It includes a search on Google Books on the string Zhuan Zhu "專諸" which normally excludes English-only and Chinese-only sources, but despite that the search still return results as stated on the nom. Those are entries on a compilation of characters in Beijing Opera, showing that the story of this assassination is still being performed after 2,500 years (thus BIO1E does not apply). Another thing is the arbitrary cut-off criteria for "pre-Wikipedia sources", as if books published after Wikipedia's establishment are not reliable. Even supposing that this page could not stand on its own, redirecting to Liao of Wu is a perfectly valid option and the "costly" argument is just nonsensical here. Searching on Google Books with the English (specifying "assassin" to filter out unrelated mentions) and Chinese separately gives pages upon pages of results, and for that I say keep. _dk ( talk) 01:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The nominator is actually stating the opposite: They searched for "pre-Wikipedia" sources and found little of merit; they also searched for Wikipedia-era sources, the lack of both, per the nominator, leading to this AfD submission. Nowhere is it claimed or implied that "books published after Wikipedia's establishment are not reliable." - The Gnome ( talk) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per _dk's comment Ominateu ( talk) 11:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC) striking comment by confirmed and blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep What nonsense, AFD! A historical figure from ancient China and a regicide who played a key role in history is clearly notable. You should read the Chinese Wikipedia article first before opening an AFD discussion. Shame on you. 1.46.91.225 ( talk) 08:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While prima facie the below looks like a clear keep, I cannot in good conscience close as 'keep' a debate on an article which has absolutely no references included. Relisting to ensure that if we keep this article, it is in a suitable condition to do so. While AfD is not cleanup, it's also not a suicide pact.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 22:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge onto Liao of Wu since subject lacks distinct, independent notability. The opera is indeed well known. - The Gnome ( talk) 11:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sources have been added, and this seems to have a great deal of notability, considering there's book sources thousands of years after his life giving pages of coverage to him, in addition to a number of modern websites also having stories focused on him. "Merging" to Liao of Wu would likely equate to "redirecting", which would result in a loss of relevant and encyclopedic information on a notable and wanted topic ( thousands of views in the past year; only a few people from 2.5 thousand years ago can claim that!). Meanwhile, if we actually did "merge" all this information to that article, the article would then be more focused on the assassin than the king its about! (Not to mention the Chinese Wikipedia has way more information as well.) Thus a standalone article is the best option. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
What other-language Wikipedias are doing carries little to no weight as to how we proceed here. As to the predicted "imbalance" in the text in case this is merged to Liao of Wu, if this indeed proves to be an issue, it would be addressed in its own time per WP:WEIGHT, WP:SIZE, and WP:BALANCE. In the meantime, the search for significant, independent notability goes on. - The Gnome ( talk) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The only way to correctly "balance" it out would be to have standalone pages (and as your main rebuttal, you misinterpret a minor point of my argument with an essay that doesn't really rebut it). As for whether he needs "significant, independent notability" of being an assassin, note that per WP:1E (the policy on that): If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Wikipedia's policy literally uses this type of example as what is an appropriate standalone in this sort of event. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
And how many as well as how strong notability- supporting sources do we obtain by the correct search? Not enough, really. - The Gnome ( talk) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Plenty, actually. See below. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Once again, and without any more feeling than before, whatever notability can be scared up belongs to the assassination itself and the art works inspired by it; most notably the opera. Not the person per se. - The Gnome ( talk) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Yet there's pages and pages and pages of works talking about him (e.g. this book with several pages on him, one of the first results) and the article gets several times as many views as the king he assassinated – all indications are that this is worthy of a standalone page. We could of course move this to "Zhuan Zhu's assassination of Liao of Wu", but the content wouldn't change any and it wouldn't look right because its a biography on a page that is not titled as a biography is. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Consensus split between merge and keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep He is a highly notable historical figure from the Spring and Autumn period. The article has been expanded, and a strong source, "The Biographies of Assassins," has been added. He is an example of a king killer, and King Helu honored him by holding a state funeral. In the modern era, a street is named after him, establishing a pagoda in his honor. Being a stub article is not a problem, and we don't want to lose such a valuable biography of such a notable figure. Thank you. 2A02:1406:6B:9548:68EE:F8E1:674B:2343 ( talk) 00:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The sources in the article show that the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. 2A02:1406:6B:9548:68EE:F8E1:674B:2343 has done impressive work on expanding the article, clearly showing the subject's importance and notability such that a merge to Liao of Wu would be undue weight. Cunard ( talk) 07:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Karnataka Forest Service

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

Zero secondary sources, no evidence of notability AusLondonder ( talk) 17:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure the article is intended to be about the department. It seems to be about a role, it says the Karnataka Forest Service "is awarded to a person who is selected in the KFS exam conducted by Karnataka Public Service Commission" AusLondonder ( talk) 11:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Right, but that's clearly a content issue, and Afd is not cleanup. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 07:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
You know what, I thought about it and you're right. Not one sentence in the article as written is actually about the department as such; it would be better to nuke it and rewrite. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 02:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 22:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Move to Karnataka Forest Department per above. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 01:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
For the record, I have changed my vote. I agree an article should exist for Karnataka Forest Department, but this one isn't even pretend to be about that. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 02:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Yeah that's what I'm saying. The department itself may very well be notable, but this article is not about the department. It's barely clear what it's about. AusLondonder ( talk) 02:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Indeed. See my latest reply to your comment. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 07:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a review of recently found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source eval would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Fliff Social Sportsbook

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

Promotional article that was previously draftified, fails WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage that isn't promotional. ~ Eejit43 ( talk) 01:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Pennsylvania. ~ Eejit43 ( talk) 01:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Cited to a bunch of thinly concealed native advertising. SI [55] - This isn't an independent review; promotional call to actions everywhere: "signing up for a NEW account", "Join Fliff today", etc. Chicago Tribune [56] - "Fliff combines the excitement of sports betting with the camaraderie of social media", "Current Fliff offer", exclusively promotional. The Washington Post source is better, but it seems to be the only acceptable source. ~ A412 talk! 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Besides the Washington Post article, there isn't any other WP:GNG coverage present, either in the article or elsewhere. Let'srun ( talk) 02:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per Letsrun. Only 1 decent source, and no evidence of anymore to pass WP:GNG. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - very weak coverage, does not meets GNG. Bikerose ( talk) 02:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG -- Devoke water 19:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. For editors who object to Deletion, it all comes down to policy and having multiple, independent, secondary sources providing significant coverage. The same as every other article on the project. You can always work on a better sourced version in Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Vishuddhananda Paramahansa

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, specifically WP:GNG's WP:SIGCOV aspect and has never been reliably sourced since it was first created in 2015. While some attempts have been made, no edits have stuck due to unreliable sources (blogs or wikiclones that clearly sourced past versions of this page which again, offered no reliable sources). Zinnober9 ( talk) 01:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Seems to have a website and several facebook pages, about the extent of coverage I see for this person. Not meeting notability with a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless reliable independent sources are found in Bengali or other languages. Mccapra ( talk) 07:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No sources on the page and simple search brings up blogs and Facebook pages. No independent reliable source I can find that can run parallel with what's on the page. Page fails notability guidelines. RangersRus ( talk) 12:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Please don't delete this page. He is a great spiritual master and was extremely influential in his era and has done huge amounts of service to humanity. We will update the page soon with all details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.47.72 ( talk) 17:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to Parrot virtual machine. I'll just add that there are several other "Parrot" articles that are due to be Merged into this target article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Mod parrot

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

Minor software project whose development appears to have ended around 2009, with the project still in a "pre-alpha" stage, and whose parent project (the Parrot virtual machine) was itself pining for the fjords officially discontinued in 2017. No third-party references in the article, and I wasn't able to find any online either. Omphalographer ( talk) 19:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article does not qualify for soft-deletion, as PROD was previously declined.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Agree with nom - no independent sources, I also searched and could not find any. Does not meet WP:NSOFTWARE. Tacyarg ( talk) 21:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 13 March 2024 (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! 00:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Some works of art with a mod theme involving parrots, nothing about this software that I can find. Trivial coverage even now with the few sources we have. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge to Parrot virtual machine, it would be better in that article. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk) 01:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_March_21&oldid=1217159044"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE