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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Pascal

Modern Pascal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-encyclopedical and promotional article about hardly notable proprietary software. Andrej Shadura (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Andrej Shadura (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was about to say that whoever wrote this article lacks basic programming knowledge when I saw the notes on the talk page. So, it's maintained by the owners of this software. In such case there is little point in trying to improve it. The article is saying that the subject doesn't need Apache or IIS. The same can be said about any programming language. The website mentions that the subject is a scripting engine for Apache... Later on the article is saying that the subject is no longer a simple scripting engine because it supports external libraries. Comparing the subject to Java was really bold. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are only two references in the article; one is to the developer's web site and the other is a blog post by the developer. By a Google search I have not been able to find a single reliable source discussing the language, only forum posts and passing mentions that don't contribute to notability. On the article talk page, the developer himself said (just a few months ago in February 2021) that the language "does not have much 'online reference'" and that "once finished and accepted", their customers "may publish product information, allowing us to reference full third-party opinion". So apparently even the language developer is unaware of any in-depth coverage of the language in reliable sources. At best, this is WP:TOOSOON. CodeTalker (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article needs a rewrite by someone without a COI, but there aren't enough additional sources of information to do one. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. OCLC 22190678 notes existence of an academic report on it, but is unpublished. WIKINIGHTS _talk 02:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Rosa

Christian Rosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Previous nomination was "no consensus" with little participation. I'm not seeing any significant coverage in strong third party sources. The Vice articles is about his mentor, and the Variety article is a review of a film he was executive producer on. As far as WP:CREATIVE, I don't see anything about him having permanent works in a major collection, or obviously meeting any of the other criteria. ArtNet might qualify as an RS, though an editor to the article seems very adamant about not including recent articles about Rosa from Artnet. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a bit borderline, as some decent reviews exist (e.g. the Guardian, Artforum and the LA Times), but there is just not much else out there that is more than a name check. GNG fail. --- Possibly ☎ 20:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found another in-depth mention in the Observer. --- Possibly ☎ 20:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there are enough reviews in RS to easily pass WP:GNG even if many of the sources slight his work. Some of his pieces reportedly selling for over $200K adds credibility if not notability as well. Curiocurio (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Curiocurio:, as far as I know, sale prices of artworks have zero impact on notability here. I have never seen it mentioned in any policy or guideline. The main reason something sells for a high price is a result of there being a buyer with lots of money who wants the work, as well as other market factors. A big ticket art sale is not based on what we find useful for judging notability: writers and critics providing critical opinions. Without the rich people, you have no story there; said another way, rich people do not have any input on who we consider notable. --- Possibly ☎ 02:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that auction prices do not contribute to notability, but at the same time it's hard to command those sorts of prices without some sort of critical attention (although it does happen). I think reviews in the Observer, Guardian, L. A. Times, and N.Y. Times (from the first AFD) are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that only one of his works have sold for over 200k back in the early 2010's when he was for a short time hot, more recently, his works have sold for less than 50k. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I made an effort and found 10 examples of very strong coverage recognizing his work and creativity for also WP:CREATIVE, from White Cube Gallery, Nowness, the Guardian, Zeit, Artforum, Coveteur, Harpers Bazaar to THE People from the Art’s field. See Simon de Pury photographing Mr. Rosas at his own studio ( see link). Happy to include these links for accuracy on the page.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/arts/international/galleries-try-to-find-their-niche.html?_r=0 2.http://www.welt.de/kultur/kunst-und-architektur/article136996297/Rosa-ist-gross-unerwachsen-und-transformierwillig.html 3. https://harpersbazaar.uol.com.br/cultura/christina-rosa-mais-que-nada/ 4.http://www.complex.com/style/2014/01/artists-to-watch-2014/christian-rosa 5.http://whitecube.com/artists/christian_rosa/ 6.https://www.nowness.com/story/christian-rosa 7. https://coveteur.com/2017/07/13/artist-christian-rosa-painter-leonardo-dicaprio-jay-z/ 8. https://www.welt.de/kultur/kunst-und-architektur/article136996297/Rosa-ist-gross-unerwachsen-und-transformierwillig.html 9. https://www.kunstverein-heilbronn.de/node/316 10. http://cargocollective.com/flatsurface/Christian-Rosa 11. https://whitecube.com/exhibitions/exhibition/christian_rosa_sao_paulo_2015 12. https://www.thedailybeast.com/simon-de-purys-studio-tours-of-los-angeles-artists-photos Further two publications of Christian Rosa were published so far over Snoeck Publishing : 15.https://www.apollo-magazine.com/provisional-painting-or-slacker-abstraction-christian-rosa-at-white-cube/ 16.https://www.kunstverein-heilbronn.de/node/316 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panghea (talk • contribs) — Panghea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: User Panghea has not responded to COI notices and a request for clarification on the COIN noticeboard. --- Possibly ☎ 20:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The referencing is very poor and there is no converage to indicate if the articles passes WP:NARTIST. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. List of galleries above doesn't prove anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 20:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The 2015 article in Apollo which I added as a reference includes discussion of the critical reception elsewhere of the artist's work. That, along with the Anne Phillipi's 2015 Die Welt article and other reviews from critics such as Laura Cumming (also added as a reference), and possibly a David Geers article in frieze which no longer appears to be available online, is indicative of the attention needed for WP:NARTIST criterion 4(c). AllyD (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per the sources provided here and the previous deletion discussion on Rosa's talk page, the reasons for keeping are stronger than 5 years ago. There is enough for a WP:GNG pass and Rosa's 2011 Walter Koschatzky Art Prize win passes WP:ANYBIO as well. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Coverage and prize easily enough. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arguments such as "is notable" (without explanation) and "per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES" are highly discounted (and the latter suggests the commenter may not have read that page recently), but enough RS coverage was brought forward to support a WP:GNG claim. RL0919 (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kadjebi-Asato Secondary School

Kadjebi-Asato Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable school; sources cited are all primary and/or don't provide sigcov, and a search finds nothing of substance. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Adequate coverage by ModernGhana.com and myshsrank.com Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This school article is notable and verifiable.Jwale2 (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This school article is notable and verifiable. daSupremo ^[talk] 12:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just saying 'notable and verifiable' is not a meaningful argument — 'notable' how? None of the sources cited are secondary and WP:RS, which is what notability requires. Sorry, but you need to present some actual evidence, not just your opinions. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the sources provided are providing WP:SIGCOV. The source indeed prove that the schools existed, but none of them are providing significant coverage. Myshsrank.com looks just like a directory of schools, which in my opinion, does not satisfy notability. The source modernghana.com is quite reliable, but it does not provide WP:SIGCOV and only covers about the school's sport achievements, which in my opinion, does not satisfy notability. SunDawntalk 08:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I've added a couple of additional sources. The school has received local news coverage which I believe establishes notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Originally was going with delete until I found out we have an article on ModernGhana - Sources aren't great and shite like the school directories and Youtube videos should be removed but by a very bare minimum I'm seeing some notability here... not much mind but enough to push me into Keeping. –Davey2010^Talk 20:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - we invariably keep high schools as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - especially those that are 60-years old with thousands of students. I'm not sure what is different here, other than it being in Africa. Also meets GNG with references added to article, and other easily findable recent coverage such as One and two, and [ three]. I have no doubt there's be references older than the last year or so, if there was an archive of the last 60 years of Ghanian news. Nfitz (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan M. Ferguson

Bryan M. Ferguson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. KnightMight (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KnightMight (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So you just said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan M. Ferguson (2nd nomination), closed with no consensus less than a fornight ago. I'm no advocate of the article but if "Not notable" wasn't enough to convince anyone, the redundant addition of "...enough to be on Wikipedia" seems unlikely to swing it this time. You'll have to lay out the specifics as to why the numerous citations don't cut it in your view. Nobody's likely to check them all without a steer from you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete more information is not better. Music video creators are very rarely notable, and there is nothing here that suggests an exception to this rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Already a lengthy article with plenty of sources. Yes, a lot of the sources are interviews, but this still demonstrates that people are talking about the subject. Bringing all this information together into one article is helpful for our readers, improves Wikipedia, and thus this article should be kept. NemesisAT (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amotz Plessner

Amotz Plessner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG, especially significant coverage. Since closing of the previous discussion, which resulted in delete, no significant coverage could be presented. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Interestingly, the current nominator voted to keep the article during the first AfD in 2016. The problem back then was the "there must be sources" fallacy for a composer who has a lot of credits in notable movies and TV shows. Well, there are still no sources for someone who should maybe have some. Plessner has never received any significant media coverage in his own right. It looks like he may have once been interviewed by a magazine but that link is dead. Otherwise he is only visible in basic professional directories and lists of credits. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think noting how I voted the first time around is of relevance at all. My keep argument back in 2016 (five years ago now) was obviously flawed. This is about as obvious a case of lack of significant coverage as they come. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CirKis

CirKis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I have a few issues with the CirKis page, in as much as I cannot make a case for it qualifying for notability. The article gets off to a bad start by saying the product is no longer manufactured. Of course that is also true of many very notable historic products, but maybe it did not sell well.

There are two BGG reviews. But in this one (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/456565/review-cirkis) the reviwer deleted his review. In the second (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/820111/purge-47-cirkis-oh-great-abstract) the reviewer sums up his position as "Should I buy this game?: Yes if you like abstracts; no if you do not. I mean it is really that easy. This is a good abstract and if you wanted to try one this is very cheap, quick to play, and pretty good." Make of that what you will.

This video review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZRASQ0G8kk) says it "is not a bad game" but it is "tedious".

This review (http://www.geekyhobbies.com/cirkis-board-game-review-and-rules/) says "CirKis is not a terrible game but it is also not a great game."

As far as a I can work out Tom Vasel has not reviewed it.

So no glowing reviews.

Now apparently it has won some prizes. From the Awards section: "Grand Prix du Jouet 2009 on TricTrac blog / The Creative Child Award".

I will look into the "The Creative Child Award" first. That link is broken and contains no information about a year in the URL. I did manage to find something in the internet archive for the broken link: https://web.archive.org/web/20080913174832/http://www.creativechild.com/toyfinder.html So just looking around Creative Child website it seems that they do not report on who they awarded prizes to in previous years. I did however find out how I should go about getting my creations considered for a prize. https://awards.creativechild.com/enter I think we should all take heart that the fee has been reduced from $150 to a mere $75.

That trictrac blog (in translation) starts: "As every year, the professionals of the toy profession come together to elect the toy grand prizes....." Again I was not able to find an official source for the 2009 winners, the tric trac reference does confirm it for whatever that is worth. However researching the prize I was once again I was able to find out how to submit my inventions. https://grand-prix.larevuedujouet.fr/spip.php?article5 I shall face the minor obstacle that my invention will need to be on sale in France, but the fee will be a much steeper 690 euros.

If you look at the image in the page it is clear that bith prizes were in 2009. In fact that picture has the following source: "We designed the product and took the picture here at Winning Moves. This is our own work." So from this we know that the major editor of the page (Joesequino - 87% by text) is associated with the company. There is a note about this at the top of the page dating back to March 2010.

So these prizes ... do they count as "major awards"?

So the final thing is that I had a look at the page of the inventor: Philip_Orbanes. It seems rather poorly sourced so I suspect it falls short of the BLP policy so I shall put in a delete request for that. Though I rather doubt there is anything libellous in it.Slimy asparagus (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Slimy asparagus (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete. It exists, but the reception is not there. It doesn't matter if the reviews are good or bad, but they are very niche, ditto for the awards. I don't think this meets GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So if this does not get deleted, does anybody have any proposals for how to improve it?Slimy asparagus (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some of the spammy external links, and found an archive for the broken one with details on the game. NemesisAT (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've found a couple more reviews that don't appear to be associated with the subject: [1] [2]. However, I think the 1977 date is an error - the Winning Moves website suggests development began in 2008. Regardless, this looks like a quirky game and I feel it warrants an article on Wikipedia. NemesisAT (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay good catch on the year. Also if this page is going to be kept I think we need to cut the Awards section. I don't believe they can be probably verified now, and I don't think they were worth much anyway. So if the sources are considered reliable, and we have a definite plan for cutting out anything that cannot be verified, then I would be happy to withdraw the nomination. Slimy asparagus (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine by me. I would just take out any mention of winning an award. The sourcing isn't great but I feel there is just about enough, and it is an interesting topic. I'm not sure whether withdrawing the nomination is allowed however given another editor voted delete. NemesisAT (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah I just checked WP:AFDHOWTO and I can't withdraw unless Piotrus changes his vote. Anyway before I change mine, I would like to be totally clear. Are you offering/promising to do all the work and on what time frame? Slimy asparagus (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding the two reviews found, can we get an assessment of the reliability of the websites they are posted on? Is there any evidence of editorial controls? Some websites like this are just blogs posting user submissions. If all we have to go with are two borderline niche reviews, I am afraid this still doesn't meet GNG in my book (I'd be happy to consider changing my vote if it is shown that those are not niche websites, but I am not holding my breath). PS. Fr wiki has a link to one of the awards (Grand Prix du Jouet) [3] but it seems dead and IA is 'failing to fetch' at this moment, maybe one of you will have more luck following up on that lead (and fr wiki archive link is likewise broken for me [4]). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we just going to remove reference to the awards. I already tried very hard to get good sources on the awards before I did the AfD. Specifically I was able to find out about the awards in general. They are both pay to be in the running awards. But they don't publish archives and the wayback machine did not archive them. Slimy asparagus (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Without them, I really don't see what makes this game notable... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you look at the process for those awards? To be considered you have to pay a fee. And then they can't be bothered to keep records of previous year's winners. Slimy asparagus (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've gone ahead and removed the mentions of awards now. NemesisAT (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. It's a little early, but I'm here now and the only plausible outcome for this is a procedural close. Evaluating so many articles in one AfD would be tough in any case, but with variations in article state, and with the subjects being from different countries (implying the need to consider possible sources in different languages), a big group nomination was definitely the wrong approach. No prejudice against speedy renomination or even using WP:PROD for eligible articles. RL0919 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Wilson

Lexi Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is one of about 40 biographies related to pageant contestants at Miss Universe 2013. There's evidence that many of them were created by a paid-editing sockfarm; the SPI states that the pageant organizer was the editor. None of these appears to be notable under the WP:BLP1E policy, none has anything like references that would sustain WP:ANYBIO. Many articles are sourced to Facebook, Instagram, and blogs; and google searches return many sites we don’t recognize as RS. For !voters not familiar with the beauty pageant space please refer toWP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources to identify bad sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following because of the reasons stated above -- creation by the sockfarm/UPE editor for many, and poor sourcing:

• Alba Delgado
• Alexia Viruez
• Alixes Scott
• Ana Vrcelj
• Anastasia Sidiropoulou
• Aygerim Kozhakanova
• Betty Boniphace
• Brenda González
• Catherine Miller
• Chalita Yaemwannang
• Cynthia Duque
• Dominique Rinderknecht
• Doris Hofmann
• Elmira Abdrazakova
• Hanniel Jamin
• Holly Cassidy
• Jin Ye
• Katherina Roshana
• Kristina Karjalainen
• Lucia Aldana
• Marilyn Ramos
• Melita Fabečić
• Mhadere Tigabe
• Mondiana Pierre
• Monic Pérez
• Paulina Krupińska
• Paulina Malulu
• Rebeka Kárpáti
• Roxana Oana Andrei
• Simona Burbaitė
• Stefanie Evangelista
• Stephanie Okwu
• Stephanie Tency
• Tsaone Macheng
• Yukimi Matsuo

☆ Bri (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling about 40 more biographies from Miss Universe 2014 pageant. Every article bundled below was created by a beauty pageant sockfarm (mostly the sockfarm referenced above), appears to be BLP1E, and has minimal sourcing.

• Ana Luisa Montufar
• Anissa Blondin
• Bea Toivonen
• Chanel Beckenlehner
• Christie Désir
• Claudia Tavel
• Desirée Cordero Ferrer
• Diana Harkusha
• Elise Dalby
• Gaylyne Ayugi
• Hu Yanliang
• Ismini Dafopoulou
• Ivana Mišura
• Jimena Espinoza
• Josefin Donat
• Keiko Tsuji
• Laurien Angelista
• Maggaly Nguema
• Marline Barberena
• Nale Boniface
• Noyonita Lodh
• Pallavi Gungaram
• Patrícia Da Silva
• Patricia Murillo
• Pimbongkod Chankaew
• Queen Celestine
• Rathi Menon
• Sally Jara
• Silvia Prochádzková
• Urška Bračko
• Valentina Bonariva
• Yasmin Verheijen
• Zhaneta Byberi
• Zuleica Wilson

☆ Bri (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following. Miss Universe 2015 biographies. All nominations below are created by sockfarms and suit BLP1E.

• Alysha Boekhoudt
• Bianca Sánchez
• Cecilie Wellemberg
• Claudia Barrionuevo
• Daniela Torres
• Debbie Collins
• Denisa Vyšňovská
• Gladys Brandao
• Hilda Akua
• Idubina Rivas
• Jeimmy Aburto
• Jessica Xue
• Jessie Jazz Vuijk
• Joanna Cooper
• Mariana Jiménez
• Martine Rødseth
• Narissara France
• Nikoletta Nagy
• Paulina Brodd
• Radostina Todorova
• Rosa-Maria Ryyti
• Samantha McClung
• Sharlene Rädlein
• Shauna Ramdyhan
• Toria Nichole Penn
• Whitney Shikongo

☆ Bri (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There are way too many articles of various quality and notability to review for one AfD.BabbaQ (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: Agree with BabbaQ. Some articles have been decently brushed off or changed completely since they were started years ago. The beauty pageants from your list that I checked were notable, and sources were OK. Some were not up-to-date. Feel free to nominate for deletion articles written as advertisements, and ask for better sources if needed, but nomination of all these articles is a step too far. Vysotsky (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• But if needed I lean towards Keep and then re-nominate a smaller number of articles or the individual articles that are not notable. As I stated above these are too many articles of different notability.BabbaQ (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep, without prejudice to re-nominating in smaller, more manageable groups. Per the above comments, such a large AfD is impossible to discuss, and many of the articles have received substantial input by editors other than the creator. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think what is needed is an RfC on notability of national pageant winners and (as has been already said) individual nominations of the above as appropriate. Furius (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 12:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Set-Up (1995 film)

The Set-Up (1995 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFSOURCES; I found little to no coverage about this film. The Film Creator (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No sources? Within seconds found a review at TV Guide [5] and Variety [6] DonaldD23 talk to me 00:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: 1995 is a bit of a tough year (among recent decades) for sourcing pop culture because the internet was new, but I've added a few more sources. It was a movie release on a major American pay television network, made by a major studio, I think it is notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gursimran Singh

Gursimran Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This individual does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO as the sources do not demonstrate in-depth coverage. There are some routine mentions in school-level and regional-level hockey match reports and an announcement of him being appointed as vice president of a regional body. According to FIH there isn't any player with that name who has played at the international level, so the claim of him representing India in 3 matches is false. The article seems to have been extensively edited by the subject himself. Dee03 21:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2018-09 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't see a consensus for a merge to the state article. That's not typical practice for non-notable places that fail GEOLAND, and it strikes me as UNDUE. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piney Grove Manor, Delaware

Piney Grove Manor, Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A grandly named subdivision backing onto a sand pit and an asphalt plant, entered into GNIS from a county road map. This doesn't afford the kind of official recognition WP:GEOLAND expects, and there's no other claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subdivision fails GEOLAND and GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 21:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - subdivision, coverage is not significant. Neither WP:GNG nor WP:GEOLAND is met. Hog Farm _Talk 19:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable subdivision. GBooks has only passing references in geographic lists. Newspapers.com has trivial non-notable coverage concerning the subdivision. JStor had nothing. As this location is not legally recognized, it does not meet #1 of WP:GEOLAND. As there is no notable coverage WP:GNG and #2 of WP:GEOLAND are not met. Cxbrx (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Delaware. It can be listed as an unincorporated place in the Municipalities section. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't see a consensus for a merge to the state article. That's not typical practice for non-notable places that fail GEOLAND, and it strikes me as UNDUE. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Acres, Delaware

Holiday Acres, Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The name all but shouts "subdivision", and in fact it is a grander-than-usual mobile home park. Another entry courtesy the county road map, with no other claim for notability. Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable mobile home park, fails GEOLAND and GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - trailer park that fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 17:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable trailer park. Newspapers.com has a number of brief obits that mention this location. Newspapers.com has one passing mention that describes the park. GBooks says that in 1994, there were 36 homes. The coverage is trivial for this non-notable location, so WP:GNG and #2 of WP:GEOLAND are not met. This location is not legally recognized so #1 of WP:GEOLAND is not met. Cxbrx (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Delaware. It can be listed as an unincorporated place in the Municipalities section. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see now reason why mention of this place would be WP:DUE in the overall state article. Hog Farm _Talk 13:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdillah El Oufir

Abdillah El Oufir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD rationale was Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE from the sources presented and from a quick search. The prizes that he is said to have won are not sufficient enough to count as an WP:ANYBIO pass.

Contested with Improvement of WP:ANYBIO wish it was removed due to lack of valid information about the prizes that the article says.

Still not convinced that there is enough notability here. Source analysis to follow. Nothing decent found in a WP:BEFORE search. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Source analysis - Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://femmesdumaroc.com/actualite/les-grands-gagnants-du-concours-international-de-films-courts-ana-maghribia-devoiles-45658		?	Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.networthspot.com/abdillah-el-oufir/net-worth/		Totally unreliable database scraper with no reputation for fact checking	Coverage is trivial	✘ No
https://lnt.ma/video-youtubeur-tourne-derision-service-militaire/			Has one sentence about him	✘ No
https://www.medi1tv.com/ar/%D9%85%D8%B9-%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%88%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%88-%D8%A3%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%AC-57440-225			Appearing as a guest on a news program is not enough to justify a stand-alone article on its own.	✘ No
https://vcc.careercenter.ma/vcc/fiche-evenement/5/5541			I can't see where he is mentioned	✘ No
https://iq-tik.ixspy.com/influencers/detail/6766279185335944198_abdillah.eloufir			Social media stats page	✘ No
https://www.picuki.com/media/2162027830576204357		Self-published	Social media post with very little coverage	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

• Delete – I agree with Spiderone that none of the sources currently in the article are adequate, and my searches find nothing else that could constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails the GNG/WP:BASIC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone We made some changes to the previous post to improve the theme by replacing the more reliable and notable links. Jhonricke (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this and this were added but neither of them show significant coverage (see WP:SIGCOV so my opinion is still 'delete' Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone This is a new stub. This topic isn't reliable enough at the moment, but it will take longer to finish with serious research. It shouldn't be abandoned until further notice. Jhonricke (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per above source analysis by Spiderone, fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG, and probable UPE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Likely to be UPE.The creating editor's user page suggests there is a potential for it Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Sources mentioned are not reliable, fails notability.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of AFC Asian Cup penalty shoot-outs

List of AFC Asian Cup penalty shoot-outs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Following on from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Lists of penalty shoot-outs, where I raised notability concerns about this topic, I still have some concerns. This is possibly a case of WP:NOTSTATS; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Secondly, I'm not sure it meets WP:LISTN as I don't see any evidence that these penalty shoot-outs have been discussed as a group significantly in WP:RS.

Due to the wide variety of languages spoken in Asia, it's impossible to do a completely comprehensive WP:BEFORE search. Yet again, I found significant coverage of individual instances, such as Reuters and BBC Arabic but struggled to find any analysis or coverage of them as a group. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (unless actual firearms were used). Shootouts are just a routine part of the game. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the discussion linked in the nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, does not need a content fork. GiantSnowman 08:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per discussion at WT:FOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, this is trivia, not encyclopedic.--Mvqr (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve it, but if it gets deleted merge it with AFC Asian Cup records and statistics. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Africa Cup of Nations penalty shoot-outs

List of Africa Cup of Nations penalty shoot-outs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Following on from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Lists of penalty shoot-outs, where I raised notability concerns about this topic, I still have some concerns. This is possibly a case of WP:NOTSTATS; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Secondly, I'm not sure it meets WP:LISTN as I don't see any evidence that these penalty shoot-outs have been discussed as a group significantly in WP:RS.

Some of the finals have been decided on penalties, most famously 2015 Africa Cup of Nations Final and 1992 African Cup of Nations Final but these have their own articles. Whilst some of the individual matches do receive significant coverage, such as Goal.com on 1992 and Guardian on 2015, the shoot-outs, as a group, do not appear to have received much in the way of coverage or analysis. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the discussion linked in the nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Shootouts are just a routine part of the game. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, does not need a content fork. GiantSnowman 08:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per discussion at WT:FOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, this is trivia, not encyclopedic.--Mvqr (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve it, but if it gets deleted merge it with Africa Cup of Nations records and statistics. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Boone

Jesse Boone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails (1) WP:NGRIDIRON (never appeared in a regular season game in the NFL or other qualifying league -- NFL Europe and UFL are not qualifying leagues), (2) WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards or Halls of Fame), (3) WP:NBUSINESSPERSON (his small, local real estate practice is not qualifying); and (4) WP:GNG (my searches in both Google and Newspapers.com fail to turn up WP:SIGCOV outside of this and this -- both from The Salt Lake Tribune and GNG requires multiple reliable sources). In addition, much of the content (including early years, college career, education, and personal) is unsourced, raising BLP concerns. Cbl62 (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 02:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to the Salt Lake Tribune pieces, I was able to find [7] [8] [9] [10]. Meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I still don't think it meets WP:BIO. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 01:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC) (If you reply to to me directly, please use a ping ((U|FormalDude)) to notify me.)[reply]

• Delete. The newspaper clippings include a couple non-trivial mentions but do not provide sufficient independent SIGCOV to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What, to you, would constitute significant coverage? It sure looks significant enough to me, and there are sources from several different media markets, not just Utah. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep To me, I think three pieces of SIGCOV from different sources is enough to meet GNG. The two sources found by Cbl62 are SIGCOV (same newspaper), while I would say the first found by Editorofthewiki also is; I'm unsure about the second he listed; pieces three and four don't seem to be significant. This, that I've found in Deseret News, seems SIGCOV to me, convincing me that Boone is a weak GNG pass. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of CONCACAF Gold Cup penalty shoot-outs

List of CONCACAF Gold Cup penalty shoot-outs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Following on from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Lists of penalty shoot-outs, where I raised notability concerns about this topic, I still have some concerns. This is possibly a case of WP:NOTSTATS; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Secondly, I'm not sure it meets WP:LISTN as I don't see any evidence that these penalty shoot-outs have been discussed as a group significantly in WP:RS.

I don't believe that we've had a discussion on the notability of these lists before, and there are quite a few of them. The only slightly similar discussion that has occurred before was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of national football teams by penalty shootout record. I have decided to nominate the articles for deletion separately as to bundle them would be a WP:TRAINWRECK.

For this tournament, I can find reports on some of the individual shoot-outs (e.g. 2019 and 2015) but no coverage or analysis of them as a group. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the discussion linked in the nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Shootouts are just a routine part of the game. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, does not need a content fork. GiantSnowman 08:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per discussion at WT:FOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, this is trivia, not encyclopedic.--Mvqr (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve it, but if it gets deleted merge it with CONCACAF Gold Cup records and statistics. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaszëbskô Jednota

Kaszëbskô Jednota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The page does not cotain much neutral content. It has positive and unsourced content which is probably original research or direct translation from some promotional material. Most sources are not neutral while looking at their titles alone. The claims are not supported by any English sources, only by Polish ones, though it isn't so important. What is important, though, that it does not really abide by WP:ORGCRIT. Also, I'll ignore the first 3 references, as they are primary sources. The first reference is a passing mention of a quote by the former leader of the organisation. The second one is acceptable, though it calls the organisation "Kashubs". The third is similar. The fourth cotains a quote of an organisation member. The fifth mentions two organisations on the same level in a video interview. The sixth reference includes a quote and some other stuff from the organisation, which is considered mentions. The seventh reference basically says that the organisation is fighting for Kashubians' independence. So, I wouldn't say these were the best sources. Alongside that, it has many other issues listed on the top of the article. MatEditzWiki (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MatEditzWiki (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. MatEditzWiki (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the article is not very good, I do believe it passes WP:GNG. Did you do a WP:BEFORE search before nominating, MatEditzWiki? A quick google search brings up in depth, independent sources such as https://wejherowo.naszemiasto.pl/byly-burmistrz-hollywood-dolaczyl-do-kaszebsko-jednota/ar/c1-8352468 https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=45234 https://journals.pan.pl/dlibra/publication/110479/edition/95798/content http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-660d14ba-8cb9-42f3-a5a1-bc0ede057b62 and that's only several of the results,. If the poor state of the article was your main reason for nominating for deletion, please again refer to WP:BEFORE. Pladica (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm. I didn't see those sources when I googled it. All I saw was mainly primary ones. I'll do deeper research next time, thank you. MatEditzWiki (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MatEditzWiki: It this case please withdraw the nomination, otherwise the discussion may be prolonged, due to low participation. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability is verifiable. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability is of course verifiable. --Arorae (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA Confederations Cup penalty shoot-outs

List of FIFA Confederations Cup penalty shoot-outs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Following on from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Lists of penalty shoot-outs, where I raised notability concerns about this topic, I still have some concerns. This is possibly a case of WP:NOTSTATS; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Secondly, I'm not sure it meets WP:LISTN as I don't see any evidence that these penalty shoot-outs have been discussed as a group significantly in WP:RS.

I don't believe that we've had a discussion on the notability of these lists before, and there are quite a few of them. The only slightly similar discussion that has occurred before was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of national football teams by penalty shootout record. I have decided to nominate the articles for deletion separately as to bundle them would be a WP:TRAINWRECK. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the discussion linked in the nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Shootouts are just a routine part of the game. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, does not need a content fork. GiantSnowman 08:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per discussion at WT:FOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, this is trivia, not encyclopedic.--Mvqr (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve it, but if it gets deleted merge it with FIFA Confederations Cup records and statistics#Penalty_shootouts. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. I don't see any reason not to merge it - and the information isn't particularly long. Nfitz (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Pentagon attack

2021 Pentagon attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable event Jax 0677 (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an event that is not sufficiently notable (wikipedia is not a news outlet). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I prefer not to think about what the non-notability of this event says about US society, but it isn't notable. Delete. RomanSpa (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Due to the location this should remain.Keep.138.162.0.43 (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article fails not news guidleines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable and can just be mentioned on the Pentagon station article. 130.156.6.2 (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Pentagon station. The stabbing, while very sad, took place at the Pentagon metro station, not at the Pentagon itself. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Towdie

Towdie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

None of the citations establish the notability of the game - they are all fan-made sites that simply confirm that it exists. The page was created for self-promotional reasons by the author of the game Special:Contributions/NeonPuffin aka Louis Wittek who also founded the company t that published it so WP:NOTYOU clearly applies.MrMajors (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - what looks like a commercial release for the Spectrum is probably notable. I found [11] and [12] for example, whilst the SK:Towdie gives some links to some prints of magazine reviews, so there's likely a lot of that too. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 10,000 commercial Spectrum games. Simply existing is not a reason for a Wikipedia page. Further, if the author of the page, who is also the publisher of the original game, later wants to launch a kickstarter to sell another version of the game then that's further evidence of self-promotion and WP:NOTYOU rather than notability. MrMajors (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the linked "magazine reviews" at SK:Towdie are from the magazine BiT, which was also published by Ultrasoft, so not an independent source either. MrMajors (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think that coverage of the game scrapes by WP:GNG due to modern coverage of the game and what I found in a quick Archive.org search - I found a review in ZX Magazín here and a brief mention in the Spain edition of Retro Gamer here. Waxworker (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Ultrasoft as alternative to deletion. Good point above about Bit being an affiliated source (see cs:Ultrasoft). Absent that main review, we don't have nearly enough significant coverage on which to base a dedicated encyclopedia article. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 04:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per the references sourced by others and because it seems pretty unlikely that a commercial release like this would not have significant coverage in video game sources at the time. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (closing admin can count me as merge, but I'm not officially voting because there isn't going to be a consensus here) I thought about this for a long time. "commercial release for the Spectrum is probably notable" "unlikely that a commercial release like this would not have significant coverage in video game sources at the time" are both arguments that are exactly what we don't want to have on AfDs, WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Now, for the modern sources above: Pocket Gamer's is a WP:ROUTINE short announcement coverage of a Kickstarter campaign, same for the Insider one (and the lack of an author makes me think it's possibly a press release rehash), and Retro Gamer is too brief to matter towards WP:GNG. Like mentioned above, Bit magazine is not independent from the developer, so it can't be counted towards notability either. That leaves ZX Magazín as the only source, and that doesn't an article make, especially with a developer's article around where it could easily live on being merged per WP:ATD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Not enough references. GamedevExpert^{(Talk to GamedevExpert)} 5:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC) A sockpuppet, apparently. Haleth (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As a single detailed example from the extensive publishing history of Ultrasoft. The article has also value for future researches into history of 8-bit gaming, particularly video games for ZX Spectrum, and also as a probably sole (or at most one of very few) example(s) of professionally published ZX Spectrum games on the territory of former Czechoslovakia during the 1990s. NeonPuffin (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the page, who is also the publisher of the game clearly has a vested interest and is obviously going to vote to keep. They are also attempting to mislead others by stating this title is a "probably sole (or at most one of very few) example" while also claiming "over 40" published titles on the Ultrasoft page. MrMajors (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep in reference to the sources provided by Waxworker and Lee Vilenski. Haleth (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Lee's two links are 404s. Waxworker links two blurbs. How do we write an article with that source material? czar 02:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The ZX Magazin article shared above looks like WP:SIGCOV, and I think it's safe to assume this commercial release would have had additional coverage at the time. NemesisAT (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As per WP:MUSTBESOURCES, it's not "safe to assume" that at all. This release was long after the ZX Spectrum was discontinued and no longer had coverage in mainstream video magazines. MrMajors (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This comment only further proves that MrMajors (talk) has very limited knowledge of history of 8-bit home computers in Central Europe – particularly in countries of the former Eastern Bloc, yet he constantly tries to present himself as a distinct expert on the topic. Because of the Iron Curtain and its long-lasting consequences, the era of 8-bit home computers was somewhat delayed there, for example ZX Spectrum clone, Didaktik was manufactured in Czechoslovakia right until 1994, the year of publishing Towdie and 8-bit home computers and their games enjoyed there great following well into the late 90s. NeonPuffin (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  "Knowledge of history" doesn't matter here. There is no significant coverage from reliable third parties. MrMajors (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The Official ZX Spectrum was discontinued by this time, but in soviet or eastern bloc regions clones were still very popular. (This game was produced in Slovakia.) Which also explains the lack of easily googled sources. Any sources that exist will be in Slovak or Russian. ApLundell (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The outcome of this hinges largely on whether the position this individual holds counts towards WP:PROF#5. Most users address this in their !votes, and while there's clearly legitimate room for disagreement, I do not see anything to overcome the numerical tilt in those arguments. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D. N. Samarasekera

D. N. Samarasekera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I originally created this bio as I thought that the Chair he holds was sufficient to pass WP:PROF ("The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon"), but looking at his academic output on Google Scholar I am no longer convinced that the unnamed Chair in this instance is enough to carry it over the line. Uhooep (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I agree that his GS profile is too weak of WP:NPROF#1 and that he does not have a named chair, so NPROF#5 doesnt apply. Also no indication of any awards and the memberships (Royal college of surgeons) are not selective enough. --hroest 18:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The newspaper article about the legal squabble over whether he was qualified to be given his post over a seemingly-more-qualified competitor [13], the only independent source in the article, makes interesting reading, but I don't think it's enough for WP:GNG-type notability. And I agree with the previous comments that we don't have any real suggestion of WP:PROF-notability; it seems like his post is more or less a standard professorship, not one at the level of a distinguished professorship, and being department chair is also too low an administrative position for automatic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, should have been a procedural delete in that the article's creator is proposing the article be deleted. Clearly fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:NSCHOLAR/WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF #5: The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. Prestigious chairs at American universities tend to be named; equivalent chairs at universities elsewhere in the world tend not to be. This is why the second clause exists; otherwise this whole section would be biased in favour of American academics. It's amazing how many editors (as all three above) conveniently ignore this clause and fixate only on the "named chair" one. He holds the Chair of Surgery (not just a personal chair) and is also a senior professor, which probably meets the "distinguished professor" criterion too (again, this latter tends to be an American thing).[14] -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Necrothesp: having held "the Chair in Surgery" (more than just a personal professorship) at a significant university outside the United States is indicative of meeting criterion 5 of WP:PROF. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The position doesn't look to be comparable to a named chair (in particular, there is another person in the small surgery department of the University of Colombo with a chair professor of surgery). Citations are weak for WP:NPROF C1, no other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three professors in the department. Of these, two hold established chairs and one holds a personal chair. Established chairs (i.e. those which always exist and are held by a succession of people appointed to them, as opposed to personal chairs which are conferred on an individual for the term of their tenure) in universities of the Commonwealth tradition are equivalent to named chairs in the modern American tradition. Named chairs are not that common in Commonwealth universities. The concept that chairs that are named, usually after an individual or foundation that endowed them, are somehow automatically more prestigious than those that are not is ridiculous and shows a lack of understanding of how these things work outside America. The holder of any chair that is established by a major university meets the requirements of WP:PROF #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But very very few places in the US have 2/3 of their faculty having named chairs. Hobit (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the department has twelve academic staff (I suspect there may be some confusion here about the term "professors" - only in America are all academics known as professors; elsewhere, "professor" only refers to those who hold chairs), of whom two hold established chairs. I'm no mathematical expert, but that is certainly not two thirds! I make it one sixth! Plenty of departments in American universities have one sixth (or more) of their faculty holding named chairs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. His position does not seem to be equivalent to a named chair, and even among Sri Lankan surgeons his citation record is below the median. JoelleJay (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Seigler

Eleanor Seigler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable, non-active actress. Only source present is about her husband, not her. Searches bring up few results, just passing mentions to her role on The Office. Fails GNG – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 16:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 16:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 16:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 16:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, inclined to agree with nominator, as this is someone who has seemingly just had very minor roles in a handful of shows which doesn't indicate any particular notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a very poor quality discussion. It focuses on allegations of misconduct on other wikis which are entirely irrelevant here. Only towards the end do we have a bit of relevant discussion, but not enough for a consensus. This needs a new discussion focused strictly on the assessment of available sources in the light of WP:BIO. Sandstein 18:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zhiar Ali

Zhiar Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Custom and built in other languages at the same time. It does not have the criteria of fame. Persia ☘ 09:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: the subject of the article is highlighted/written about multiple times by notable media such as Rudaw Media Network, The New Arab, BBC Persian, VOA, Middle East Eye, Têtu, and a lot of relevant local media (check sources). The subject has ISNI and VIAF pages as well on the internet and is associated with Rasan (GA). Obviously this means the person is relevant and notable.--Épine (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I suggest the filer of the deletion discussion reads the section when not to use the deletion process at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#When_to_not_use_deletion_process. And the one above too. I can't see any reason for why the article should be deleted.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above, why was the article nominated for deletion in the first place? It's already established that the subject is notable. User Persia has administrative access on the Persian wiki and deleted the article without a deletion discussion, probably COI. Misuse of SYSOP privilages as well.--Hevi (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hevi: Also read the sources before slandering. No matter how famous a person is, his article is not made in 7 projects at the same time.In many sources that have been used, the person in question has not been mentioned and in some, even his name has not been mentioned.And it is better not to play the role of a Detective in Wikipedia!. You must be held accountable for the accusation you made--Persia ☘ 15:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Persia, can you please list the sources where the subject is not mentioned as you claim? And last time I checked, there is no problem if an article is created in multiple projects at the same time so long it aligns with the local policies.
    Also, please stop threatening Wikipedia users. Your last statement constitutes as a personal attack, and such things are not tolerated in Wikipedia. Threats and intimidation do not work here. Épine (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Independently of what other people say, being an activist for LGBT in the Islamic world is dangerous, and I don't know many who live in the region, and openly propagate their views. That being said: A simple search on google for the name first turns up a zillion social media sites, before the first newspaper report on page 3 or 4 og the hits. With this in mind, and knowing that very similar articles have been posted to several wikis,I see more of a campaign. I don't say that it isn't important to also fight for acceptance of the LGBT way of life in Islamic countries. In any case: in my book, this person hasn't yet reached the level of notability required for inclusion. So delete.Eptalon (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment @Eptalon:, I think the ranking of the websites have to do with SEO of the media outlet rather than the notability of the subject you search for, also keeping in mind that there are multiple ways to search for this subject on Google, including in Central Kurdish (ژیار عەلی) or Arabic spelling of his last name (ژیار علی), so ultimately, this is not a valid reason to base notability of subjects on. Considering the heavy censorship there is in Iraq on this topic, I think a feat has been achieved by the press releases already listed in the article, which were very hard to get to.--Épine (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I live in Western Europe, and used the Latin script name, as given in the article. I am aware that there may be issues such as different transliterations, and possibly country-specific (and even personally adapted) search results. Nevertheless: 3-4 pages of essentially social media before I hit anything remotely looking like a more or less independent journal article (which only mentions him in passing) is a clear indication, and can be one piece in a puzzle for notability. Eptalon (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eptalon, that's the tricky situation, because we cannot determine the notability of international figures by searching for it in one language only. For example, what you may have missed during your search are this, this and this for example, which all extensively feature him. And like I said, where you find the journal reports on Google does not really say anything about the notability of the subject. You can easily find a bunch of articles by clicking on the news tab on Google without having to search through the pages. Considering it is a very common name in Kurdish, it is only natural that you'd see a list of social networks popping up the first few pages. Épine (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: as noted by Hevi above, I think Persia has a case of COI with the subject of this article. He has gone on a deletion campaign project wide, on Azerbaijani wiki, and on Turkish wiki, on Turkish wiki his edit was reverted by an admin because he marked the article for deletion under an invalid criteria. He also misused his admin privilages on Persian Wikipedia and deleted the article without any discussion or valid reasoning. He marked the article for speedy deletion in German wiki and used the same argument which Eptalon uses (meatpuppet?), saying it is "created across different projects at the same time", his edit was reverted as "incomprehensible reasoning". Eptalon, you support the deletion of the article because it was created across multiple projects at the same time, as you stated in German wiki, which is not a criteria for deletion. You should have waited for this discussion to have came to a conclusion before you have nominated the article for deletion in Simple Wiki or participated in the discussion in German wiki. You ignore the points I made and reinstate the same arguments you made here across different wikis. I hope you realize this is disruption.--Épine (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing to note: subjects about Kurdish figures and Kurdistan had so much COI from mainly Arab and Persian editors that ArbCom had to interfere. Articles relating to Kurds and Kurdistan are still heavily disputed in Persian Wikipedia as well. It is an important thing to discuss considering the nominator is active on fawiki and most likely Persian. Épine (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fallacy, If I previously doubted that the article was customized. According to the user, I am sure that it was made exactly to order and in several projects at the same time. What does the political situation in Iran have to do with the fact that I am the director of the Persian section? First, they accuse me of abusing access to WikiFa, which has nothing to do with this discussion, and then they accuse Iranians of having problems with the Kurds! And since they think I am an Iranian, according to this argument, I have introduced a Kurdish-speaking figure to remove.--Persia ☘ 18:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You nominating the article for deletion across many projects over a non-existent criteria proves the COI statement. Also your actions have affected other communities decision when it comes to the article, thinking about deleting the article because you placed the deletion tag across the page on many Wikis. Please stop and wait for a conclusion on enwiki first.--Épine (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I know that I don't edit EnWp much anymore: When discussing a deletion, let's focus on the page up for deletion, and its merits. Who created it, and who nominated it are irrelevant. Given that this page popped up on 5 Wikis at the same time may point to paid editing (which is difficult to prove). Besides being a LBTIQ+ activist, the person is also a singer/songwriter/musical artist. So they miight use the LBTIQ+ part to attract attention to his person. Eptalon (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eptalon: I always used a template on the discussion page to declare my connectivity with articles as you can see in Wild Fire (band), so please let’s not make pointless accusations. I have been on Wikipedia for years and know how it works and know the rules around declaring paid edits or work, which this is not, otherwise I would have declared it. And please stop with the conspiracy theories, you can find out with a simple Google search that he is the only openly gay LGBT+ Rights activist in the region, and the article thoroughly talks about his activism instead of his musical career.—Épine (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Épine: I am not making personal accusations, but I see that between the German and the English Wikipedia the exactly same template was used, and the text was replaced/translated. I am not against people advocating LGBT... rights, but with the tools at my disposal, I cannot see that this person reached a level of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia.Eptalon (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also note: it is on the article to show that the person meets the requirements for inclusion in this Wikipedia,so the "burden of proof" is on your side, not on the side of Wikipedia. Eptalon (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed most of the phrases sourced by twitter, one concerning the university is still in the article and I added a better source needed tag. But the article has still many sources. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Paradise Chronicle, thanks for the improvements. I wish we collectively agreed that improving the article is better than slapping a deletion tag on it for minor reasons. Épine (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform you: The respective article on Simple English Wikipedia has been deleted, the archived discussion is here. -Eptalon (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Removed in other projects--Persia ☘ 07:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• /fa.wikipedia
• az.wikipedia.
• de.wikipedia
• simple.wikipedia
• ar.wikipedia
• sv.wikipedia
• da.wikipedia

Please check the wikidata history And other user edits to be checked--Persia ☘ 07:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another example of creating wiki article in multiple wiki to show that person is notable, it is not the first time and is not going to be last time, date of creating and pretty much self explanatory Mardetanha (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: After having read several of the for me understandable sources, I must admit that they often mention his comment on a moment during a crackdown on LGBT activists. Others were self published or tweets. There are other sources where he is portrayed more extensively but they are mostly not prominent ones. The fact that it was Zhiar Ali who many sources chose to cite, implies that he'll probably become WP:LASTING. There is also a lawsuit against his NGO Rasan going on. I am leaning towards moving the article to draft space in order to let the article grow instead of deleting it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: there are no self published sources after the tweets were removed. As for the reason for the deletion on other wikis, Persia deleted the article on fawiki where they are an admin without a deletion discussion, same thing was done on arwiki even though it is a policy on both wikis. He nominated the article for deletion on all wikis under the same reason he has done here, and most followed through without further investigation except for Turkish wiki. On Swedish wiki the article is not deleted but drafted to improve the language further, simple English was nominated by Eptalon above under the same excuse Persia uses. I have previously created articles on multiple wikis at the same time, i.e. Lost Whispers (Evanescence album) and Wild Fire (band). This does not mean the subject of the articles are not notable and it is not an all a criteria for deletion. Épine (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Mardetanha is a WP:MEAT from fawiki as well.--Épine (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Épine, I respond on the self published part as I was pinged before: self-published was within the deleted text. Then I also find it interesting that someone is allowed to delete an article without discussion, but it's in another language wiki and doesn't concern the English wiki. I also can't really follow the arguments for delete, because it was created in several languages. My following comment is to be seen as an argument based on the sources I can understand. As to me Zhiar Ali will very probably become a notable subject (if he is not already). As a vegan and LGBT activist he has come to the attention to BBC and VOA in the international, Rudaw, MEE in the regional and The Vegan Review and the several LGBT focused journalists and outlets in the specialized press. But maybe we ought to give the article some time to grow to get a more prominent coverage. The big outlets often treat the same two moments, the one on his comment of the Asayish and the Rasan lawsuit. Besides his so-called journalism on Medium is more of a niche activism (3 followers) and as to me not worth a mention.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Paradise Chronicle, I understand your comments, and thank you for adding them here. As for the discussion, it is part of the deletion process on both Arabic and Persian wikis, but I think there are some off-wiki activities are happening because it was clearly a coordinated deletion campaign by Persia. I oppose deleting or draftifying the article and suggest letting it grow like many other articles in the article namespace. I am trying to find better sources as well and add them to the article. We can add the ((current)) tag to it. Épine (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: I agree with Paradise Chronicle and Épine. Ali is quoted by multiple notable sources, but has yet to receive the substantial coverage that people on the List of LGBT rights activists have and fails WP:SIGCOV. The events Ali has responded to seem to pass WP:SIGCOV, but Ali is WP:NOTJUSTYET. Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 African Minifootball Cup#Results. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 African Minifootball Cup

2021 African Minifootball Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I m sorry but this is crazy this sport is kinda ne and i have link to result i dont kno i should do more you can find video of compt in youtube dear in such way e only should pub football artical only so ho e can kno other sport i m out e try to make it clear that e love this port but you pp just keep delting without even make any effore of searching — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amara94 (talk • contribs)

Having videos on YouTube does not make a topic automatically notable Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to African Minifootball Cup#Results as a valid WP:ATD. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. There's also an article for the 2018 tournament, which is also questionable at best. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• So beach soocer is questionable and thousand of sport that i can find here because i never see an event of them before personally because you say video its not a source 1st it start since 2017 i don t think that the website of Wmf just a big lie of years the problem that the media don t cover it for a reason its not that popular sport so there's no revenue from cover it so lets just stop talking about news sport and lets name it wiki popular sport so pp don t waste their time trying to explain new sport event in the World and thank you and its not myprobleme that most of artical are in frensh or arabic main 2 language in africa.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amara94 (talk • contribs)

If there is significant coverage in reliable French or Arabic sources then please link us to those. The sources do not need to be in English. If there are some articles on beach soccer events of questionable notability then please feel free to put them up for deletion in a separate discussion. The reason this is up for discussion is because nobody has found any evidence that this passes WP:GNG, a statement that still seems to be valid. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• so explain the problem its it ith the event it self or the result off matchs ? because i found some result not all of them in press and i m sorry

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. user:Sheijiashaojun, I have not read everything you have posted, that might make me a bad admin but the little I did read seemed to be making the same points over and over. If you want to be listened to, try and be more succint next time.

Much of the discussion revolved around whether or not the journal was indexed in a selective database. My reading of NJOURNALl is that it does not have to be in order to meet NJOURNAL, (but if it doesn't it is likely to fail NJOURNAL). However, a GNG case has also been made, and if that succeeds then the NJOURNAL status is a moot point. Two sources were put forward for GNG (Columbia and China Heritage Quarterly). No argument was put forward that these sources were not sufficient for GNG (but a third source, a French review, was deemed insufficient depth). There is therefore enough put foreward in favour of GNG without opposition for this to be keep. SpinningSpark 18:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East Asian History (journal)

East Asian History (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator with reason given on talk page. Citations on GScholar are minimal and do not indicate notability. PROD reason stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article does have independent sources, and history citations are always low, so these citations from Google Scholar are plenty. Editors and contributors independently notable, produced by a national public university. Selective databases skew recent, because there were no such databases in 1970s and 1980s when this journal was most prominent (note the name change, Papers on Far Eastern History is the former name), though I do note that it is patchily carried by which is a selective database, albeit one limited to Australia: https://search.informit.org/journal/eah. . Meets all three criteria for WP:NJournals (Criteria 2 below) but most prominently meets Criterion 3 as a journal of historical importance in Australian Asian studies, since it predates the current major journal, Asian Studies Review, or the main Asian Studies association the Asian Studies Association of Australia hence keep. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Cited by 80 Related articles

 Cited by 17 Related articles

 Cited by 14 Related articles

 Cited by 43 Related articles

 Cited by 10 Related articles

 Cited by 10 Related articles

 Cited by 32 Related articles

 Cited by 9 Related articles

 Cited by 27 Related articles

 Cited by 26 Related articles

 Cited by 26 Related articles

 Cited by 24 Related articles

 Cited by 9 Related articles

 Cited by 22 Related articles

 Cited by 17 Related articles

 Cited by 6 Related articles

 Cited by 15 Related articles

 Cited by 15 Related articles

 Cited by 6 Related articles

 Cited by 14 Related articles

 Cited by 13 Related articles

 Cited by 13 Related articles

 Cited by 12 Related articles

 Cited by 5 Related articles

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For the editors and university being notable, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Concerning the "historic importance": are there any sources that show this? AS for the citations, those would not be enough to make a single academic notable, let alone a whole journal. As for the "recent skew" of databases, that is incorrect. Most databases, including GScholar, go back many years. I appreciate your efforts, but unfortunately your arguments fail to convince, sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When this is a substantial part of the output of a university centre, or of the academic work of editors, it is notable. I don't see why WP:NOTINHERITED would apply, because work on the journal is constitutive of their notability, not incidental. Historic importance is shown in article for instance by the early publications of Igor de Rachewiltz's translations of The Secret History of the Mongols, first published there. The history of East Asia is a low citation environment, especially in English, and Google Scholar is useless for Chinese and Japanese sources. Most databases are hopeless on pre-electronic journals like this one. You are acting in good faith, but I don't think you have an accurate read of what is notable in Asian studies or history. Note also considerable citation in books, especially in works on East Asian History in the 1970s-90s. Clearly professional historians have long regarded it as a reliable source. https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22papers+on+far+eastern+history%22 Sheijiashaojun (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What you need is a reliable source that comments upon the role of the journal in publishing that secret history. Or sources that comment how the centre is notable because it publishes this journal. Finally, please note that being a reliable source has no bearing on notability. We have lots of RS that are not notable and lots of unreliable sources that are. The correlation is zero. I won't comment further, it's all been said, let's give other editors the chance to chime in. --Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• And I have given that reliable source: An article in Mongolian Studies (another notable journal that could use a page) and another from Monumenta Serica. I have furthermore given sources from Columbia University and University of Sydney citing about the journal as well as mentions in articles in Republican China and in a publication from the Australian Academy of the Humanities. Wikipedia's own page on The Secret History of the Mongols mentions it, giving sources, and I didn't put it there. It has not all been said, and I think I should point out where we differ, because it would be a shame to lose a page. Information about peer-reviewed journals is useful to scholars and students of history. Books and journals are where historical knowledge is recorded, and it is important to understand the context of those publications. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article in Mongolian Studies is about the "Secret History", not the journal. Our article on the "Secret History" doesn't mention this journal either (not that it matters, WP cannot be used as a source for itself). --Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not correct on either count. Quoting from the Wikipedia article on the Secret History: "between 1972 and 1985, Igor de Rachewiltz published a fresh translation in eleven volumes of the series Papers on Far Eastern History accompanied by extensive footnotes commenting not only on the translation but also various aspects of Mongolian culture." The MS article is about Rachewiltz's book, but you said I needed a citation showing the influence of work in the journal. Quoting from the Mongolian Studies article, Rachewiltz's subsequent book was "a revision of quite similar translations of individual chapters published by the author during the years 1971-86 in the Australian National University's Papers on Far Eastern History" i.e. the journal that is now East Asian History. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Move / merge and then Redirect I think there is encyclopedic content here and should be kept if possible, and given the current geopolitcal goings on at this time, is likely to be sought out by people looking for general information via wikipedia. As to INHERITED or not, if the centre producing the journal is not notable enough to have its own article then it cannot inherit anything, constitutive or otherwise. If the centre's broader notablility can be stablished, I would suggest that the content here be incorporated into an article about the centre, eg, the journal is one of the things it does, and this content and its references would contribute to establishing the centre's broader notability. Aoziwe (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Centre does many things unrelated to the journal. It should indeed have an article, but that's not the one I chose to create. People interested in journals may or not be interested in the publisher, but it doesn't make sense to redirect notable books to the page of the press, and in the same way it won't make sense to redirect someone trying to find out the journal to a page about the Centre. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... it doesn't make sense to redirect notable books to the page of the press ... Agreed. The question here though is "is the journal notable in its own right", which I presume this AfD will decide. I was trying to suggest a way of keeping the content ... Aoziwe (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and thank you for trying to help, but it wouldn't make sense. Please note in Notability Guidelines: "or journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries when evaluating whether C2 is satisfied. This information is often available in Worldcat: https://www.worldcat.org/title/papers-on-far-eastern-history/oclc/2265702&referer=brief_results; https://www.worldcat.org/title/east-asian-history/oclc/1120263121&referer=brief_results. Held by a few hundred libraries. It's what you would expect for a regionally notable history journal. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In this case, library "holdings" are rather meaningless: the journal is open access, so many libraries will list it simply because it doesn't cost them a dime. It would be more meaningful if this were a subscription journal, because in that case it would mean that librarians made a decision to consecrate some of their (always inadequate) resources to this particular journal. But just putting a link on their website is cheap. --Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That may be true for holdings of "East Asian History" but cannot be true of holdings for "Papers on Far Eastern History" since the name changed in 1990 and it has not been digitised. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added the inclusion of Papers on Far Eastern History in the Bibliography of Asian Studies, which I verified by going in to check it. It's hard to show in any other way though, because EBSCO doesn't seem to keep a listing. I think the inclusion of the journal in this index may end with the name change in 1991. Anyway, I think this meets the 'selective index' concern, if for some reason one might think that Informit does not. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Select / deselect all  

• Weak keep - I'm prepared to give this the benefit of the doubt, it looks like there is some notability and some useable content here. At the very least the page should be userfied (per WP:ATD) rather than outright deleted to enable the creator to find more sources (if what is said about sources from the 1970s and 1980s being stronger - which is likely to be true). Deus et lex (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability per GNG or NJOURNALS. I'm not seeing significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. This journal is not listed in any selective databases. Contrary to the contravening opinion above, these selective databases go back further than the year this journal was established. Also, this journal has been digitized all the way back to 1991 [15]. That means it has had at least 30 years during the "digital" age to garner notability.

In any case, journals were listed in selective databases before the electronic or digital age. Web of Science lists journals and articles all the way back to 1900. And Web of Science produces the Arts and Humanities Citation Index which itself has temporal coverage to 1975. Scopus has temporal coverage going back to 1788. So, if this journal was notable in its former iteration then it should be listed in selective databases under some related title. Also, having coverage in World Cat (library catalogs) does not denote notability. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This link was provided on the article's talk page [16] along with the claim this journal was notable during the 1970s and 1980s [17]. This link to Google Scholar is not evidence of notability during that period. The listed publications are issues of East Asian Studies. These are not independent coverage. And they don't discuss the journal's former iteration (Papers on Far Eastern History) in any significant detail. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the two bibliographies above, citing issues of the journal in its former iteration, or even the current iteration, does not demonstrate notability. These listings are just matters of fact. They are not independent sources providing independent significant coverage of this topic, which is needed to satisfy GNG or NJOURNALS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bibliography of Asian Studies is published by the Association of Asian Studies which also publishes the journal under discussion here. So, the Bibliography is not independent coverage. In contrast, Arts and Humanities Citation Index or Scopus would be independent coverage. And Google Scholar is not considered a selective database and does not indicate notability. What I am seeing as a significant part of this AfD, is referencing the journal back to itself or its publisher and trying to claim these sources indicate notability. And they do not indicate notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment With respect, there are several errors of fact above. The Bibliography of Asian Studies is published by the Association of Asian Studies; the journal is published by the Australian National University--They are not related. Independent coverage noted in the article includes articles from the Academy of Australian Humanities, the University of Sydney, Columbia University, and numerous other scholarly journals that are not affiliated with the ANU. In what sense are these not independent coverage? As to the question of index coverage--yes, Scopus, AHCI etc. sometimes go back in history with their coverage, but they are recent indices, and so when they indicate they are timespan they are covering journals the long histories of currently prominent journals, but won't cover a journal that was prominent in 1880 or in 1970 (and certainly not one that was prominent in Mexico or Japan). A&HCI was founded in 1978, Scopus in 2004, Web of Science would seem to be mid-1990s. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Web+of+science&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CWeb%20of%20science%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CWeb%20of%20science%3B%2Cc0 But on principle, why would North American or UK indices determine the notability of an Australian journal about Asia? As for Worldcat holdings, note 2c of Notability: "2.c) For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries when evaluating whether C2 is satisfied. This information is often available in Worldcat...Data on library holdings need to be interpreted in the light of what can be expected for the specific subject." Let me furthermore reiterate that it is included in two selective databases: The Bibliography of Asian Studies (which is US-based) and Informit, neither of which are its publishers or otherwise institutionally linked.

Sheijiashaojun (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It is actually not that important whether the Bibliography is independent or not. It strives to cover everything published in its field, so it is not selective in the sense of NJournals. As for the coverage in other databases, especially Scopus works hard at including journals that at one time or another were influential and covers lots of stuff that is older than when it was started. (As Steve mentioned above, it goes back to 1788). --Randykitty (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It is important if it is incorrectly asserted (and deemed a reason for deletion) that "is published by the Association of Asian Studies which also publishes the journal under discussion here. So, the Bibliography is not independent coverage." As for Scopus, it remains skewed towards the recent and the Anglo-Eurocentric. Is the Revue des deux Mondes in it? Angry Penguins? The Edinburgh Review? The Young Companion? It's just nonsense to suggest that everything of note will be found in Scopus. Further, the BAS certainly does not "strives to cover everything published in its field". Yes, it is a comprehensive resource "intended for students and scholars interested in any aspect, discipline or sub-region of Asia." https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/bibliography-of-asian-studies/ which means that the professional bibliographers of Asian studies deem it useful (and notable) for the academic study of Asia. BAS does not cover the vast majority of thing "published in its field" which needless to say is overwhelmingly in Asian languages. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The publications you mention are not academic journals but magazines and fall outside of the remit of Scopus and Clarivate databases. And with its wide coverage, it's ridiculous to assert that Scopus is "Anglo-Eurocentric". --Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just pointing out that Scopus doesn't have some monopoly on notability (and ER and RDM very much were important scholarly fora in their day). East Asian History is indexed where you would expect it--in Asian Studies bibliographies and Australian academic databases. As to your other comment, please show me all the journals in Lao and Khmer that Scopus indexes. For its neo-colonial impact, see: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-012-0843-1 It's also a very doubtful resource for including many non-notable and downright predatory journals--because of its prestige, it's routinely gamed: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03852-4 Sheijiashaojun But in any event, nothing needs to be demonstrated about Scopus since both coverage and other external sources and other indices meet the criteria. (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. With respect there are provable inaccuracies in the above statement that responds to my statement. "East Asian History" is a journal currently published by an NGO known as the Association of Asian Studies.[18]. It's right there according to that source I just posted. This was removed from the "East Asian History" article after I added it.

And The Bibliography of Asian Studies is also published by the Association of Asian Studies [19]. This shows that this Bibliography is not independent coverage of East Asian History. The bibliography and the journal have the same publisher. Also, this Bibliography is not described as a selective index as needed by Wikipedia standards [20].

I do agree it is a comprehensive database. It even describes itself as comprehensive: "The Most Comprehensive Western-language Resource for Research on Asia" [21]. Just because it ends up covering journals that cover a geographic area known as Asia, doesn't mean it is selective.

In the first line of our article: "East Asian History is a journal based at the Australian Centre on China in the World at the Australian National University." So what does that mean - based at a department at Australian National University? That means nothing. And there is no evidence that it is based at this department in ANU.

Please post a source here that says "East Asian History" is based at a department of ANU. By convention, we write who is the publisher of the academic journal is in our articles. To say that the journal is based somewhere is nebulous wording WP:WEASEL. And removing my statement of fact about the publisher from the journal article taints the worthiness of this information on Wikipedia.

Additionally, no evidence has been provided that the current iteration, East Asian History, is published by ANU, as stated above. Please post a source or sources that say East Asian History is published by ANU, because there isn't a source posted in the article.---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does this above statement mean? Independent coverage noted in the article includes articles from the Academy of Australian Humanities, the University of Sydney, Columbia University, and numerous other scholarly journals that are not affiliated with the ANU. Can you post sources here to back up this statement? I'm not sure you understand what is meant by independent coverage. I see that you wrote "articles" not indices. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, That link goes to the Journal of Asian Studies, a completely different journal, which indeed is published by the Association for Asian Studies and has no connection to East Asian History or the ANU. I reverted the edit because it is an error. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second, several sources are given in the article to show that it is and was published by the ANU, including a submission to parliament: p. 105 here https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-1940330487/view?partId=nla.obj-1949620308#page/n114/mode/1up It is also on the journal's hompeage of course: http://www.eastasianhistory.org/

Independent sources in the Wikipedia article include from *Columbia http://www.columbia.edu/~hds2/BIB95/ch03.htm#East%20Asian%20History It seems to me that it both demonstrates notability and, as a Columbia review of Asian studies journals, cannot be impugned as an important independent source that rates the work as high-calibre. So I quote it in full: "East Asian History [Formerly Papers on Far Eastern History, through 1991] Published by: Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University, Canberra Type: Semi-annual - two volumes per year. Call no.: 1991-: DS501.E15; 1970-1990 (Papers on Far Eastern History, vols. 1-41): DS 501.A88. Library has: Papers on Far Eastern History, vol. 1 (1970) to 41 (1990); East Asian History, vol. 1 (Winter 1991) to present. Current issues on shelf. As Papers on Far Eastern History, this journal first appeared in March, 1970. Until the mid-1980s, it remained fairly low-budget in appearance. Its new incarnation, East Asian History, is fancier, with glossy paper and illustrations, higher-quality print, and footnotes printed conveniently in the margins alongside the articles. It was originally founded as a forum for the publication of papers written by the faculty and students of Australian National University, and this group has continued to represent the large majority of its contributors, although over the years there have been increasing contributions from scholars from other universities in Australia and abroad. Each volume of Papers on Far Eastern History included on its last page a short description of the contributing authors' backgrounds; East Asian History has foregone this service. Since the journal's inception, each volume has consisted of five or six academic papers, including full footnotes, and occasionally author's bibliographies as well. The countries covered have included Japan, China, Korea, and those of Southeast Asia. The heavy focus, however, is on China, and then Japan. A majority of the papers concern modern political and social history, though the magazine is certainly not limited to these areas. There are also translations from a variety of primary and scholarly texts, and numerous articles on ancient history, culture, and the arts, including literature, painting, and architecture. BOOK REVIEWS: Book Reviews do not appear.OVERALL EVALUATION: Though it gets little attention, the caliber of Australian scholarship tends to be quite high in many areas, and that appearing in this journal seems to be no exception. The first volume of East Asian History (June 1991) includes articles with such intriguing titles as "Concepts of Nature and Technology in Pre-Industrial Japan" (Tessa Morris-Suzuki) and "The Meiji Constitution: Theory and Practice" (Masuda Tomoko--trans. by A. Fraser). This journal is potentially an important source for all historians of East Asia, and should not remain "down under" in our list of consulted periodicals. INDEXES: There is no index to date of East Asian History, but a cumulative index (by author) to the entire run of Papers on Far Eastern History can be found in vol. 41 (1990)."

Some other independent sources cited:

• USyd https://www.sydney.edu.au/china-studies-centre/our-research/resources.html
• Monumenta Serica: Walravens, Hartmut. “In Memoriam: Igor de Rachewiltz (1929-2016).” Monumenta serica 65.2 (2017): 445–451
• Journal of the American Oriental Society: Street, John C. 2006. The secret history of the mongols: A mongolian epic chronicle of the thirteenth century.

and a few other journals and books. They're all cited in references.

• Sorry about confusing the names of the journals. I will have to look at the other stuff later. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. As to selectivity, Wikipedia doesn't define it. The bibliography certainly does select sources it deems useful and reliable for research (and exclude others as non-academic or non-reliable). I suppose what degree of 'selectivity' constitutes 'selective' is a matter of opinion. I wrote the entry because I work in the field (but not at ANU and have no affiliation with the journal) and it helps to clarify the history of Asian Studies in Australia. I think it can be useful to this admittedly small field; I don't see what's to be gained by deleting things that are notable, even if it is only regionally and to specialists. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Wikipedia does define selectivity for itself such as selective databases, which I posted a link for above: [22]. The founding of Science Citation Index, Web of Science, and Scopus has nothing to do with being listed in these databases. Temporal coverage matters more. But it probably means this journal did not apply to be listed in Web of Science or Scopus databases. I'm sure not every Academic journal feels the need to apply to be listed, and to see if they make the cut. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that the term 'selective' is not defined, it is simply opposed to 'comprehensive.' If it means 'selected by specialists and excluding other materials' then BAS qualifies. If it means 'Not including all relevant academic materials' then both BAS and Informit qualify. If the point is 'not simply sourced (like Google Scholar) without vetting', then both qualify. Simply opposing it to 'comprehensive' is not very clear, since databases such as Scopus (which WP defines as 'selective') also call themselves 'comprehensive.' https://www.elsevier.com/en-au/solutions/scopus Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To address your earlier concern about weasel words, I have changed it to read that it is published by the ANU without reference to the Centre (where contact is listed, and where the editing at least is housed). You can check that in the front matter here. http://www.eastasianhistory.org/sites/default/files/article-content/44/pdfs/EAH44_Preface.pdf

Selective is defined on Wikipedia for Wikipedia. There are the selective databases to which I linked above, and Wikipedia's notability criteria are also selective. There is nothing in polices or guidelines that lends itself to the idea that "selective" is in opposition to "comprehensive". Selective should be seen or defined based on this project. The BAS has not been determined to be a selective database according to Wikipedia standards. The definition you have provided is a made up rationale - in other words it is WP:OR. Every organization has its standards or it will fall apart. Same with Wikipedia. And I have been noticing a lack of concern for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which describe and characterize our standards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am following the WP guidelines by my lights and as I understand them. I am not trying to make up some new rationale; I am trying to interpret what WP says about selective databases/indices. From your links and Randykitty's all i see is "The most typical way of satisfying C1 is to show that the journal is included in selective citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus. Being included in comprehensive (i.e. non-selective) indices and services like Google Scholar and the Directory of Open Access Journals are not sufficient to establish notability." That gives examples but does not define selectivity, except in opposition to comprehensiveness. That binary doesn't hold. So what is the definition of selectivity according to WP? Please give it here, because I am unable to find it. In any way I can interpret 'selective' in ordinary terms, BAS and Informit are both selective. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selectivity can be seen as technical term on Wikipedia. It is not merely the dictionary definition. Selectivity reflects the view of the following databases: The Web of Science databases have a vigorous and proactive selective process that is ongoing. There are teams of editors who are specialists in their field and have deep knowledge of the journals in their area.

Web of Science has an ongoing process of selecting journals that meet their standards and weed out the ones that don't. "...24 quality criteria designed to select for editorial rigor and best practice at the journal level, and four impact criteria designed to select the most influential journals in their respective fields using citation activity as the primary indicator of impact." [23].

"Any journal that fails to meet all 24 quality criteria will be removed from the Web of Science Core Collection." [24]. Also, the Journal acceptance rate is "10-12% for the three core indices - Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index." [25] and so on. Scopus also has a rigorous selection process. It has an independent Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB). [26].

Also Scopus has been giving Web of Science a run for its money. Here is a linked paper on that - just click on the title: Zhu, J., Liu, W. "A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers." Scientometrics 123, 321–335 (2020). doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8. This paper at the outset says: "Web of Science and Scopus are two world-leading and competing citation databases."

I haven't had the chance to look up Chemical Abstract Services (CAS), but this is also supposed be rigorously selective. BAS and Informit do not seem to have these kind of processes. There is nothing that says they do. It would be misleading to say BAS and Informit are on par with these other databases, or have the same status on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere have I claimed that either is "on par", nor would that be relevant because that is not what the guidelines say. I have merely claimed that Informit and BAS are "selective", because that is a "typical" way of showing notability. Informit is "expert-curated" https://lthj.qut.edu.au/information/librarians (i.e. selective). It is also the "leading dedicated source of authoritative research from Australia, New Zealand and the Asia Pacific region" https://www.nswnet.net/vendors/rmit-publishing. BAS is the "standard bibliographic tool for Asian studies" http://www.nccjapan.org/eresources/guides/bas_guide_04-07.pdf . This was even truer in the period where this journal was most prominent, since the indexes you are citing didn't yet exist. I don't think you can assert that there is a different technical definition because none is given in the notability guidelines, and Informit and BAS demonstrably both select their sources. I do have reservations about Scopus and Web of Science for disciplinary, linguistic, and geographic bias, but they are also not relevant here (nor is the linked paper on their relative merits relevant, no one is disputing their selectivity). But even if it were really decided that these two were not selective (despite there being no definition given), this would still apply: "2.c) For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information" and WorldCat etc. can be consulted, and I have provided them. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Final comment. I think that the case for deletion has been clearly laid out. The case for keeping, despite the production of huge walls of text, misunderstanding of WP policies, wikilawyering, and general muddying of the waters is much more shaky, although I don't envy the poor admin who'll have to wade through all that stuff. Just one final remark (although I fear that it will cause another multi-paragraph diatribe): Yes, WP determines what constitutes a reliable source and what is or is not "selective". Only if we judge that a source is reliable and establishes notability do we use it to base an article upon. --Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The case for deletion depends on ignoring the multiple independent reliable sources--the Journal of the American Oriental Society, Monumenta Serica, the obituary from the Australian Academy of Humanities, the specialist resource from Columbia, among others-- that have been adduced. Even if it is decided that "BAS" is not selective, Informit is, and in any event inclusion in citation is only the "most typical" was of proving C1, but it can also be shown from the independent sources. But C1 is moot if C2 is satisfied. Again, 2c: "For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information" therefore other sources have been adduced. As for "general muddying" or "wikilawyering," it is only reasonable to respond to calls for deletion that one thinks erroneous or ill-founded (the largest 'wall of text' was in response to Steve Quinn's challenge above to produce sources here), and the casting of such aspersions is hardly congenial to building a collaborative Wiki community. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, looking at the sources, the article seems to pass. Looking at other journals articles, they only have 2 sources (e.g History and Sociology of South Asia and Central Asian Review). So I think the article should be kept. Sahaib (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's a bit dicey to look at other articles. History is indexed by Scopus, a clear meet of NJournals. I don't see any evidence of notability for the CAR, so I have [[[WP:PROD|PRODded]] it. Sahaib3005, I would appreciate if from among the many references listed in the article you could tell us which one(s) offer an in-depth discussion of this journal meeting GNG? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The standard for GNG is not "in-depth" but the following: " "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." I think the Columbia source and the China Heritage Quarterly Source would meet this, but most of the conversation here has not been around GNG but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals), which the journal in my view more clearly meets. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• for Randykitty it may be of interest that East Asian History and Papers on Far Eastern History are featured in EBSCO Historical Abstract coverage as well: https://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/hah-coverage.htm. You link to the EBSCO databases yourself on your Talk page under Links/References, so I gather you think it's a selective index. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• EBSCO databases are not selective in the sense of NJournals. And given your tendency for WP:IDHT this is the last time that I'll respond to you, so please don't ping me again. --Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I was trying to follow your own rationale, so I looked at the links you provide on your TalkPage around journals. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been hopelessly bludgeoned by the article creator, for which I've given them a slight admonishment. I invite somebody more adept at navigating atrocious walls of text (this page is at almost 60 kB) to take a look, since I'm not making too much sense of it at this point in time. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apologies for that. I hadn't been on AdF before and only came when the article was (some might say overzealously) nominated for deletion, and didn't know the process or the etiquette too well. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best not to point fingers. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. This has been WP:REFBOMBed to the point of making notability difficult to discern, but I think the Columbia bibliography and China Heritage Quarterly references (footnotes 5 and 11 of current version) are independent and in-depth enough to barely meet WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just here to renew apologies and to say that I have another dedicated (albeit short) review, at present footnote #14. For convenience: JSTOR 24628900. Also for convenience, the two mentioned by David Eppstein: http://www.columbia.edu/~hds2/BIB95/ch03.htm#East%20Asian%20Histor and https://chinaheritage.net/journal/remembering-igor-our-secret-history/. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Web of Science 1975-88 (as "Papers on Far Eastern History," its name at the time) As far as I can see, WoS doesn't give its historical indices without going through a uni site, but anyone with access to WoS can verify by searching that name or if with a Clarivate account perhaps by this 'query link' https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/summary/09d45c66-f292-40af-862c-820d50359740-051076c6/relevance/1. Also listed here, which I gather is a list of all of WoK's abbreviations. https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/P_abrvjt.html Sheijiashaojun (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. There's an important difference between "citing works" and "cited works". The former are included in a citation index, the latter not necessarily. The list of abbreviations are "cited journals" and many of them will only come up in searches because an article published in the journal was cited by an indexed journal. As far as I can see, this journal is not included in any of the databases to which WoS/WoK gives access, nor was it ever (neither under the current name nor under the old name). Despite all the efforts above, this still fails NJournals and GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Randykitty is correct about the list link, sorry I misunderstood it. I don't think it's correct about the Web of Science Core Collection index itself...But if you go into the actual Web of Science Core Collection, the articles are all there, 1975-88, whether they've been cited or not. Below is an example (sorry about the wall of text, but it's accessible only through login and it gives the whole record for this and all the other articles in Papers on Far Eastern History, and it looks like articles included from any other indexed journals). Please note the Journal Master list is no guide for historical inclusions because it is for those that are currently indexed, not those that have been indexed in the past https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/master-journal-list/. I encourage those with uni access to have a look through Web of Science Core Collection itself, 1975-88 for this journal is fully indexed. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:A1984AAP5200002 :

"THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS .11. + TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY By DERACHEWILTZ, I (DERACHEWILTZ, I) PAPERS ON FAR EASTERN HISTORY Volume30 IssueSEP Page81-160 Published1984 Document TypeArticle Author Information Corresponding Address DERACHEWILTZ, I (corresponding author) AUSTRALIAN NATL UNIV,DEPT FAR EASTERN HIST,CANBERRA,ACT 2600,AUSTRALIA Affiliation Australian National University Categories/Classification Research AreasHistoryAsian Studies

See more data fields Journal information PAPERS ON FAR EASTERN HISTORY ISSN0048-2870 Current PublisherAUSTRALIAN NAT UNIVDEPT FAR EASTERN HISTORY, CANBERRA 2600, AUSTRALIA Research AreasHistoryAsian Studies Web of Science CategoriesHistoryAsian Studies"

Sheijiashaojun (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC) Can also be verified by WOS Accession number, which are searchable, for instance WOS:A1987L181200002 https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/summary/2c17a552-fa79-4266-a647-3387d6835ffe-051db768/relevance/1 Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It still fails verification. Note that those links only work for you, that's just the way WoS works. But I logged in and cannot see any evidence that this journal, under its current or its previous title, was ever indexed by any of the databases that WoS is the access platform for. Several articles are included because they are cited by articles in indexed journals, but that's not the same thing. --Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and comment I'm swayed by Randykitty's arguments about NJOURNALS as there's no one more familiar with that. Also, Sheijiashaojun please be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON. You've made your arguments, please let others (and there's no need to respond multiple times). Star Mississippi 13:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment But for whatever reason, randykitty is mistaken, despite their acknowledged expertise on NJournals and many contributions. That's fine. But please go into Web of Science and search by accession number. e.g. A1977EF70800002 or A1977EF70800006 or A1978GL25600010. It just is indexed. If on the other hand you search for CHINOPERL which is not indexed but appears in indexed articles, you just get the kind of search hits Randykitty is talking about. So...what can I say? It's indexed for that period. Check it by going into Web of Science yourselves. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree with you. Not every rationale has to be explained in excruciating detail, on-demand. The fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not mean that others are obligated to answer, much less satisfy you with their answers. Consensus does not require unanimity, and attempting to argue the community into submission tends to backfire. Star Mississippi 18:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely consensus can only be built when people present evidence and other people look at what that evidence shows? It was evidence that hadn't been presented that speaks to indexing, and no one as yet has checked the accession numbers which show it. I don't see any other way to bring it to people's attention, so...check the accession numbers in WoS. Those records clearly state "This record is from: Web of Science Core Collection Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI)" Sheijiashaojun (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I was asked to comment: One has to look at the actual Master journal list, [[27]]--doing so, I find theat neither East Asian History or PAPERS ON FAR EASTERN HISTORY is not listed. This comes about because is a paper in a listed journal (called a citing journal) might refer to a paper in this particular series. (a cited journal). The publication being referred to will necessarily be included,, because that's the nature of a Citation index.But "indexed" in the real sense means that each of the items in a publication are analyzed to see what they cite.-- that the journal is a citing DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

• Since I don't want to misinform, and was beginning to question wonder if I was using the Web of Science database incorrectly, I wrote the Clarivate customer service email and asked them to clarify what the situation was, and whether there was any external resource I could show demonstrating that it had been indexed. Clarivate, which owns Web of Science, wrote back:

"Thank you for contacting Clarivate.

I am consulting with my Internal team if the requested information is available for dissemination. I will update you once I have feedback from my team.

In the meantime, I have checked in my internal system and see that the journal, "Papers on Far Eastern History, ISSN: 0048-2870" was indexed in Web of Science under ARTS & HUMANITIES CITATION INDEX from 1977 to 1989.

I hope this information manages to resolve your query. Please bear with us during this time.

Thank you for patience and kind understanding.

Sincerely, [name suppressed] · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · [name suppressed] Customer Service Representative, Customer Service | Clarivate Australia Toll Free 1800 312 965 | New Zealand Toll Free 0800 443 162"

I will forward the email to anyone who likes on request, or you could call the Clarivate number or the Clarivate customer support clarivate.customersupport@clarivate.com. Or...one could search "Publication title" or the accession numbers I have given (it isn't on the Master Journal list, because that list is only for currently indexed journals). Clarivate says it was indexed for those dates, and Clarivate should know. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • as Sheijiashaojun pointed out to me, I cannot rule with any resource now available to me. out that it was covered in earlier years . I consider the response from Clarivate settles the issue--we cannot use such information in the article but we can here in deciding about it. The best way to find something we can use is from a printed set of the index for those years, if anyone still has them. But in any case:
• Keep. It is clear from other information that it is a significant journal in its field, and out coverage policy for journals is very lenient. Our standard of indexing in general indexes fails to a considerable degree outside the sciences, for some of he most important publications in some fields of the humanities--especially anything published about less-studied countries and cultures are indexed only in specialized indexes, it being assumed (in pre-Wikipedia days) that nobody except specialists would be possibly interested. We have changed all that. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I also did a search on the Web of Science Master list a few times and came up empty. The assention numbers above don't work either. Also, the JSTOR article linked above is a one paragraph mention and does not discuss the journal in any kind of depth. It is more like a notification. So, it does not meet significant coverage requirements. Also, trying to find out about the former title of this journal is probably irrelevant because we are discussing this journal. Per NJOURNALS and other SNGs, Notability is not inherited.

And I don't agree with DGG about indexing services necessarily failing journals outside of science. "Asian" related journals are listed on the Web of Science. For example there is Art of Asia, China Communications, and China Perspectives. Maybe the problem is academic journals have to actively apply and then journals must meet certain standards to be accepted for indexing on the Web of Science. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User: Steve Quinn. Thanks for your thoughts. It doesn't appear in Master Journal index, because that's only for those currently indexed. Did you select the category "accession number" in the WoS search? I'd be happy to send the Clarivate letter or the screen shots of the listings if you explain how (I gather there's no way of posting them here). It's the same journal, it just changed its name (presumably because 'Far Eastern' was going out of fashion); and at that point WoS decided it didn't meet its requirements anymore and stopped indexing, I suppose. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely keep -- To quote the journal website home page, it is an "international refereed journal publishing scholarly research"; that is of course not an independent source, but do we doubt it is true? History journals do not feature well in citation indices, because (1) the citation indices were initially designed for science, not the arts (2) history journals are commonly citing primary sources, rather than the work of other scholars. It is often difficult to find independent sources on Academic journals (and learned societies), because they do not get reviewed. The best test would be whether articles in the journal are being regularly cited in other works. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Peterkingiron, any journal (even predatory ones) can and will claim to be an "international refereed journal publishing scholarly research". And counting citations is very subjective (and, again, even predatory journals will get cited). So should we do away with NJournals and ignore GNG and never take an article on an academic journal to AfD again? --Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is correct to say text from a journal's website is not independent. And this is because they are tooting their own horn. It is incorrect to say History journals do not fare well in citation indexes. On the contrary, Scopus lists History Journals. Clarivate produces the Arts & Humanities Citation Index which covers the History discipline. EBSCO indexes all kinds of journals. Here is a large list of history journals on Wikipedia derived from a number of indexing services and scholarly publishers. To see which services and publishers please read the intro of the article. Also, I guess the above editor is unaware that the work of other scholars are primary sources - derived from primary materials and that is original original research. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Clarivate wrote again, and welcomes anyone to write their technical support if they need further information about the historical listing of this journal (as Papers on Far Eastern History) in WoS: ts.support.asia@clarivate.com. User: Steve Quinn you are on record above (9 August) as saying that Arts & Humanities Citation Index is independent coverage, and that's what this journal is in (but not in the Master Journal list, which is only for current coverage). If you are unable to confirm this by using the index with the relevant search terms, or if you do not have access, than Clarivate will be happy to tell you so, or I can provide by screenshot or email forward at an address you provide. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, significant journal in its field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackattack1597 (talk • contribs)

• Comment: Like the previous !votes: WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSIMPORTANT... --Randykitty (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps these screenshots will help: https://paste.pics/aa98b5af491bc6562d4cd15b93153a22 https://paste.pics/60be7df421774dcf6878d133ccb492d9 https://paste.pics/850a40e81eb771f06cb9d001d9abaaa6 https://paste.pics/57aa0d9d0c797ec2b03b405f788b9754. As you can see, it is indexed in Web of Science (Arts & Humanities Citation Index) from 1977 to 1989. So the nom is mistaken. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to Worldcat, "Papers on Far Eastern History" is held in multiple libraries in the United States (in the midwest - University of Chicago, University of Minnesota, University of Iowa, University of Nebraska, etc.), far away from its publication location in Australia. The successor "East Asian History" appears to be equally well-distributed. This is enough for me to support a keep for this article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niklas Stråhlén

Niklas Stråhlén (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I couldn't find specific guidelines for windsurfers, but it doesn't seem to meet any sports or general notability guideline, but borderline. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years, hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For disclosure, I don't know anything about windsurfing, but it's not a completely unknown activity – there are plenty of windsurfers out there. Apparently he was at least at one point ranked as the first (a shared first rank) professional freestyle surfer in Europe. This seems notable to me. I've fixed the reference to one article and added another. /Julle (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also added Swedish and Nordic Championships wins, and competing in the World Championship. /Julle (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Julles improvements. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination per great comments above and improvements. Thanks to both of you :) Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Roosevelt

Slow Roosevelt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article is full of promotional peacock words about how the band "started it all for hard rock" - a style that existed for decades previously, and were "Grandfathers of modern Dallas metal" - which is not a known sub-genre. Article was created in 2009 by either a fan or member who then disappeared from WP. The band did get a fairly decent write up in a local paper, which shows as a dead link in the article but can now be found here: [28]. I can find nothing else beyond brief and very local gig announcements and some songs in the usual streaming services, and even those are rare. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doomsdayer said it best, as usual. Also, the introduction is very PR/fansite-like: "Slow Roosevelt (1996-2004) was one of the premier hard rock acts in the famous Deep Ellum music during its peak from 1999-2004. Although other bands in that genre were on the scene (e.g., Drowning Pool and Jibe), Slow Roosevelt was the band that started it all for hard rock during that time.[citation needed] Considered the Grandfathers of modern Dallas metal, the band accomplished many successes such as a nationally released album..." with no sources to back it up. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotional in tone, and lacking the sources to satisfy WP:GNG or any other notability criterion. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Union Bay Post Office

Union Bay Post Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I couldn't establish that it has the coverage or significance to meet WP:N Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Being one of two surviving wooden post offices in Canada is impressive. The article says that it was given heritage building status after the restoration, but this may just be by the local municipality rather than a national recognition. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added a newspaper article from the Comox Valley Record as a reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – combining this article with the one Eastmain found yields a clear GNG pass, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep thanks again to the work put in by Eastmain since the deletion nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the two references mentioned above establish notability. Nfitz (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beğlan Birand Toğrol

Beğlan Birand Toğrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Successful, but doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. She died a few years ago. I expected to see more articles and more citations at Google Scholar, but two awards stand out: being a Fulbright Scholar, and being a Honorary Fellow of Newnham College at Cambridge. One reference, presumably taken from her CV, says that she was Chair of Experimental Psychology (1969–1977), and was the Head of the Department of Psychology (1982–1994) at Istanbul University. I don't know what her h-index was. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as far as I can tell, the Honorary Fellow thing is fairly rarely given over a long period of time. Overall body of work seems quite impressive. Maybe meets WP:PROF, but at the least I'm happy to invoke WP:IAR. Hobit (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Hobit. --Artoria2e5 🌉 15:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to have held an established chair, not just a personal chair, so meets WP:PROF #5, as outside the USA named chairs are uncommon and were even more uncommon in her day. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets NPROF for holding the Chair of Psychology and the Head of Dept positions at Istanbul University. Furius (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Dougher

Leslie Dougher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable politician. BEFORE returns only one usable source (string: "leslie dougher") which in turn makes sourcing a potentially fatal issue for the article; I'm willing to buy that there are offline sources but what I can find on Google isn't making weight. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found plenty of media references to Leslie Dougher on Google, as well as what appeared to be public records of election results and so forth. I think being chair of a major political party at state level is notable. If she were some sort of precinct boss I'd be happy to lose this article, but Florida's got more than 20 million people, so this is a significant position. I do note that the article is a bit thinner than those of her predecessor and successor, but no doubt some politics junky will get round to filling this in over time. RomanSpa (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Her predecessor and successor were elected to notable offices, unlike Dougher, so RomanSpa's argument does not hold water. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. State level Chairperson of a major political party is a notable position. See also Harold Alexander (Florida politician). SWP13 (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]