< December 18 December 20 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B.L. Indo Anglian Public School, Aurangabad[edit]

B.L. Indo Anglian Public School, Aurangabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found, mainly listings and social media. The Banner talk 11:38, 26 December 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 11:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier's High School, Mahua[edit]

AfDs for this article:
St. Xavier's High School, Mahua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 19 December 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Divo Zadi[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. This is a WP:ROTM cleric FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there's been a recent discussion that supported their inclusion based on WP:NEXISTAtlantic306 (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah there we go then. Curbon7 (talk) 07:37, 21 December 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. Being bold and closing early. Clearly passes WP:NPOL.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exalgina Gambôa[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. UPE? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:06, 19 December 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. Another being bold moment for me today - clearly passes WP:NPOL.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farida Benyahia[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, possible UPE FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:05, 19 December 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 delete. CSD G5. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khamis Chuwal Lom[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG likely UPE. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:59, 19 December 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 Routine closure due to questionable nomination. I'm closing this early as there was no reason to nominate that article at this point. The nom wants to keep it. The conversation on the talk page is all about keeping the article. Its seems the editor who suggested AfD is confused on what AfD is about.

If one wishes to renominate this article with a policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImJayStation[edit]

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

A user on the talk page has asked about this being nominated for deletion, so I thought I'd nominate here. As the creator, I favour keeping it, although I realise that it may be difficult to fix some of the issues flagged on the page. —🎄☃️❄️ Season's greetings from AFreshStart (talk) ❄️☃️🎄 22:55, 19 December 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 23:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D.A.V. Public School, Balasore[edit]

D.A.V. Public School, Balasore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep on the grounds that there has been insufficient effort made to find sources. The RFC that amended the assumed notability of schools noted that "...Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media" This particular nominator has been tagging schools articles for deletion at a rate of one every two minutes and that does not leave any time for any sort of search at all, let alone in local print sources which may only be available in the relevant country. The RFC also noted that "Editors are asked to refrain from making indiscriminate or excessive nominations. " I do not in any way doubt the sincerity of the nominator, who may be unaware of the RFC, and I share with them a real concern about the notability of many of the nominations, but I do think a little more investigation and a little less pace would help direct the effort in a more targeted and helpful way. Velella  Velella Talk   22:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The RfC notes should not shall. AfD discussions can be relisted up to three times (given the circumstances), that's up to 4 weeks of time to at least provide some thought to these discussions. Additionally, the most important item from the RfC is WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. You can make either argument about how there is no deadline to delete or postpone discussion about whether it should be kept or not. There are sources or no sources. That will not change a month from now. To make it clear, this is perhaps the correct speed to take them. – The Grid (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I am content with deletion under those circumstances. I was concerned that proper care should be taken before mass deleting schools. If these were unsourced and previously soft deleted, I have no objection to a delete  Velella  Velella Talk  
Delete No significant coverage found, mainly listings and social media. The Banner talk 11:38, 26 December 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted Boy[edit]

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

just plot; zero evidence of notability, no obvious book reviews beyond those listed in first afd, which are not substantial. ; few holdings in worldcat for this or his other books. , too old to draftify. Note; there are other works with the same title, DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm doing some edits to the article and have just noticed that the Gay Times review is actually about this book's sequel-- but it also calls Enchanted Boy one of GMP's best-selling titles. My !vote is still keep, plus folding coverage of the sequel into this article.~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:22, 19 December 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. ✗plicit 11:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhaya Varadeeswarar Temple, Adirampattinam[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. Source added are temple blogs and not reliable. No significant coverage found while searching. Venkat TL (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:18, 19 December 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 11:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:17, 19 December 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 23:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Zatlyn[edit]


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

Essentially every reference here, is a disguised autobiography (like the Globe and Mail article listed in the references as "Gale OneFile", which is just an aggregator), or a similar promotional interview where she says what she likes about herself, notices about placement on promotional lists (like two of Forbes multiple series of lists (Unless we are willing to accept that Young Global Leaders is a notable award; I consider it merely another promotional list, all of them designed for the purposes of PR). I think there's no point keeping promotional paid writers out of WP if we merely use what they got published elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

abusive sock of banned editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • keep no wp:before - substantial coverage here [1], [2], [3], and more mentions here [4], [5], [6] we have list articles based on forbes lists, so deprecating this reliable source is against consensus. it would not do to have an article on the COO, but not the CEO: that might be a donna strickland moment. but i supposed banned admins do not care how bad they look. --Sheiktelex (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG is not a "banned admin", and I haven´t even voted here (and am not banned obviously), so your cheap jibe widely misses the mark. But I agree that many admins don´t seem to care how bad they look. Fram (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
you are an intelligent person, why do you not write some content, rather than shitting on others work, for a decade, and edit warring on talk pages? --Sheiktelex (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removing personal attacks is not really "shitting on others work", and as I have written a lot more content than you have achieved so far, your comment is again wide of the mark. Fram (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
you are not here to write an encyclopedia, but tone police. how is that working for you? are you happy getting banned? no self-reflection book burner? --Sheiktelex (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA... Fram (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, article views do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Missvain (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs seven more days to sort out.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly none of those fly - press releases, primary sources, and Medium doesn't build notability. Missvain (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Missvain (talk) 23:50, 22 December 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. Also eligible for speedy deletion (G5, Ugbedeg). MER-C 17:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omasan Ogisi[edit]

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

WP:ROTM, likely UPE Spam. Fails WP:BIO FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:54, 19 December 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) 17:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Dowling[edit]

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

PROD rationale by User:Joseywales1961 was Fails the notability guidelines of WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not yet played a game in a fully professional league per list at WP:FPL, fails general notability.

Contested because the article was previously deleted in June 2008 when the subject was 5 years of age.

His only appearances to date have been in the English 7th tier, which is three whole tiers below professional football so I agree that NFOOTBALL is comprehensively failed. Coverage is routine and trivial and falls short of WP:GNG clearly. The only decent source is this Lancs Live article but even this is little more than a basic contract announcement followed by a quote from the player. The actual independent analysis is very limited. Even if this is considered a good source, GNG clearly requires multiple sources of significant depth and I couldn't find evidence of this online. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • You might well be right, I didn't notice that the age of this subject would have made that obvious. Not a huge deal, an AfD is just a PROD with more support, even if it might not have been strictly necessary. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:09, 20 December 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. Also eligible for speedy deletion (G5, Ugbedeg). MER-C 17:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikenna Ikeme[edit]

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

WP:ROTM lawyer. Likely UPE Spam. Fails WP:BIO FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:48, 19 December 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bjørg Aase Sørensen[edit]

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

I'm very unsure if she meets WP:PROF and think there is a possibility she doesn't. The sources here are bad, one of them an eulogy published by her employer. As for 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", her professorship was at a university college which is one tier below universities. As for PROF#8, I'm unsure whether Acta Sociologica qualifies as a "chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area". The current editors at least don't have articles. Geschichte (talk) 20:48, 19 December 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Balcazar[edit]

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

Blatant advert. Likely UPE, part of a swathe by this creating editor. Fails WP:BIO FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does 100 Women (BBC) count towards WP:ANYBIO? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would direct the company page to hers if anything—many of the sources now cited predate that company and discuss other work. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection I agree. pburka (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are directly about her life and actions that led to her creating her companies. None of it is tabloid coverage. You're basically claiming every single significant piece of newspaper coverage is promotional? Especially considering the coverage is from years before she was put on the BBC 100 list. SilverserenC 02:49, 25 December 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iseoluwa Abidemi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, likely UPE FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:32, 19 December 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. User:Athaenara deleted under WP:G7. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Bone[edit]

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

I participated in the first AfD for a previous version of this article in 2017 which resulted in deletion. Since then the player has still not competed in a fully professional league, so he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. The only new source I can see is an interview with The42 which I don't think is enough to meet WP:GNG. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:43, 19 December 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 withdrawn. Surprised those sources didn't come up when I searched. (non-admin closure) Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 19:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Party of Ivory Coast[edit]

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

Non-notable minor Communist party. Provided sources fail to demonstrate the requirements of WP:NORG. Could not find any reliable sources covering this party after a Bing search. Note that this may not be the "main" Communist party of Cote D'ivoire and is a minor fringe group following Hoxhaism. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 18:15, 19 December 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) 17:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Medina[edit]

New Medina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is absolutely nothing on this topic (neologism - ?) other than a single book—Creating a New Medina: State Power, Islam, and the Quest for Pakistan in Late Colonial North India—, written in 2015 by one Venkat Dhulipala and book-reviews thereof. There is a potential article to be written about the book but this is not it.
The book has been subject to harsh criticism from a variety of quarters but not unsurprisingly, Dhulipala believes all of them (Faisal Devji, Barbara D. Metcalf, Yasmin Khan, and Manan Ahmed Asif) to be in the wrong and peddling half-truths, lies and distortions. In summary, we are looking at a revolutionary fringe work - if it were not, the concept might have stood a chance of being notable in itself.TrangaBellam (talk) 16:59, 19 December 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. Sandstein 10:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Obasi[edit]

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

From here, Strong possible UPE article spamming on non-notable individuals who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them a before shows press releases, user generated sources, optimization of primary sources, pr sponsored post and unreliable sources which have their bylines as “Editor” which is indicative of an op-ed not attributed to any prominent author thus all are unreliable sources (pieces) The possible UPE editor has had their Autopatrol stripped, but now we need to do the hard work by cleaning up(deleting) their possible paid editing articles. Celestina007 (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adeaga Bukunmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Rotimi Bankole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Tayo Amusan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Karl Toriola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Tobechukwu Okigbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Funso Aina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
BBC Pidgin, BBC Yoruba, and FabWoman all cover her by the name Kie Kie. TJMSmith (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren an in-depth before was done alright, I mass nominated 6 articles in all and four have already been deleted. But if you can show me the sources that meet requirements which are outlined in GNG that show notability for any of the remainder I’d be happy to see them. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the sources that TJMSmith presented up above? Also, sorry, but MER-C's actions were completely out of line and I'm tempted to go to ANI over this. Trying to use the G5's as an argument is completely inappropriate. Especially since G5 is a worthless CSD claim. SilverserenC 18:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren, feel free to, but I’m afraid you’be inundated with clarifications on how CSD G5's work. Furthermore all sources provided by TJSmith are about this very individual “Victory Obasi” which Missvain already stated expressly should be deleted, now let us analyze the three sources TJSmith pointed to, this doesn’t meet in-depth SIGCOV thus doesn’t agree with the tenets of GNG that requires in-depth significant coverage. The second second source is pre packaged pr sponsored post. Their third and last source is indeed a fair piece but not only isn’t insufficient to establish notability SIGCOV still remains a problem, but a decent piece all the same, so in all we only have one semi good piece so as aforementioned remains insufficient. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Furthermore all sources provided by TJSmith are about this very individual “Victory Obasi”"
That is false. Please look at the above discussion again. TJMSmith replied to pburka with sources about Adeaga Bukunmi. SilverserenC 19:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren, wrong again, I analyzed the three sources that were pertaining to Victory Obasi, the other sources they provided which I’m yet to analyze are about Adeaga Bukunmi which has now been G5 Delete, which I taught you here as to how G5 works, which justifies MER-C's actions, so like I said you are wrong, please read thoroughly before replying Celestina007 (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which has nothing to do with the notability of the subjects whatsoever. SilverserenC 18:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which wasn’t what I implied, insinuated or stated. I’m pointing out how a G5 now becomes applicable, please read thoroughly before replying. Celestina007 (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kie Kie : Don't Waste Your Time Trying to Be Somebody Else". This Day. October 23, 2021.
  • "Kie Kie On the NdaniTGIFShow". Ndani TV. September 18, 2020.
  • "Kie kie: Adeaga Bukunmi Ilori sọ bí Elẹ́dàá ṣe gbà fún un tó sọ ọ di eèyàn ńlá ní àwùjọ àwọn aláwàdà". BBC World Service. September 9, 2021.
  • Chigaemezu, Ernest (December 12, 2021). "Social Media Influencer Of The Week: Adeaga-Ilori Bukunmi (KieKie)". Connect Nigeria.
  • Agorye, Jessica (October 16, 2017). "Get Inspired by the Simple And Fun Ankara Designs of Lagos TV-Girl Adeaga Bukunmi's". Style Rave.
She has a fashion line, it seems, and won an award at the Lagos Fashion Awards. I'll have to see if I can dig that up. SilverserenC 20:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Designer Q & A: KieKie Walks Us Through Her Journey As A Designer". Exquisite Magazine. September 10, 2020.
She also apparently was featured in Exquisite Magazine and appeared on the cover of the August issue. SilverserenC 20:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, so you're really going in all the way on trying to use G5 as a deletion argument, how shameless. SilverserenC 21:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren, thus far you have called MER-C's action which are in accordance with policy worthless threatened them with ANI, and have used the word shameless to qualify the statements of Timtrent. Asides this very AFD, I have been polite enough to explain to you in two different places as to how G5’s work [12] [13] but you seem to continue to be rude, if you continue this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior or continue to be uncivil to your co-colleagues which is one of the cornerstones of this collaborative, see 5P4 I would have to officially report this very breach of civility to relevant notice boards, look! if you can’t make an argument without being condescending, rude or uncivil, then please do not bother to make arguments at AFD's, please and please I implore you to be prudent with your choice of words. Celestina007 (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for your input @Silver seren, above is an example of how you may make an argument without name calling or being rude, @JoelleJay, the crux of the article's deletion is that it is G5 eligible as it was created in violation of an ban/block, the article creator should never have created the articles in the first place. Your analysis on the sources is quite impressive for someone who I presume is not an expert in with Nigerian sources, from your analysis above you see how they don’t meet GNG, which requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, thus, a major GNG fail, I also note you claim to have seen other sources, if yes, then if you could point me to the sources which give her in-depth significant coverage and are independent of her id be happy to see them and analyze them for you after this AFD is closed. You can show me the sources on my TP and i’d happy to do a source analysis. Celestina007 (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Celestina, I should have phrased my last sentence more carefully. I haven't looked for or found other sources for Kiekie, I just came to the conclusion that she probably has more and better coverage based on my assessment of the sources already mentioned in this discussion. I know the article has already been G5'd, but figured I would add to what others had said about Kiekie's notability in case anyone was thinking about recreating the article. JoelleJay (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, First, I believe I should begin by thanking and appreciating your polite tone, yes it has been G5'ed and correctly so, you are correct, anyone but the banned editor evading a block can always recreate the article when the subject becomes notable. Infact I believe TonyBallioni was being too modest and kind when they undid their speedy close, as this whole AFD can be speedied under the grounds of G5. Celestina007 (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's nice that your argument is that G5 supersedes any deletion discussion. Meaning that any G5 deleted articles can be undeleted as a draft and then reposted as a mainspace article without any changes whatsoever needing to be made and with the editor taking responsibility for the article. With no complications of there being prior deletion discussions in the way. Thank you. It makes things easier. SilverserenC 01:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're reading things into my words that I did not put there and I think you're doing it deliberately. Reyk YO! 02:01, 25 December 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 00:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn (CMS)[edit]

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

This software is only covered by https://lmwn.medium.com/ , the publisher, it has no notability. Mvqr (talk) 14:50, 19 December 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buddleja globosa 'HCM98017'[edit]

Buddleja globosa 'HCM98017' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consensus has been established via discussion at WP:PLANTS and previous AfDs/PRODs that individual cultivars are not presumed notable in the same way as natural species, and must meet GNG to have a standalone article. Database and commercial catalog entries are not considered sufficient for this purpose.

The Stuart entry is no more than a few sentences. I found no coverage of this plant that meets all 3 of criteria of being significant independent and reliable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no objection to the article having information about its cultivars in general, but my concern with upmerging every non-notable cultivar is the difficulty of establishing an objective criteria for what should be included or not. As there are hundreds of Buddleja cultivars, if we don't have some kind of strict criteria, the article risks becoming overloaded with information about non-notable subtopics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • My concern about redirecting vs deleting is that since the cultivars are non-notable, they shouldn't be mentioned at the species article, and it's generally frowned on to have redirects that aren't mentioned in the target article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Caleb Stanford, the consensus at the WT:PLANTS discussion was not to merge, that is an inaccurate reading. I hope that the closer reads that discussion to confirm that. There are literally hundreds of named Buddleja cultivars per species including hybrids, so merging any of these articles to the parent would be lending totally undue importance to potentially a ton of content about non-notable topics (and inviting the placement of more). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the info, I will update my votes if that is indeed the case -- do you have a link to the WP:PLANTS discussion? I wasn't able to find it.Caleb Stanford (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is where I found the clearest consensus. Change vote to delete based on the number of cultivars in question. Might I suggest that maybe the parent article should at least have a plain list of all the cultivars even if there are hundreds, but nothing more expansive? Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a terrible idea and was soundly rejected as an option in that WT:PLANTS discussion. I'm not sure you have a solid understanding of the amount of scientific rigor applied to cultivars and their naming - it's none. Cultivars can be anything from long-term commercial products to something some hobbyist bred in their backyard one day for funsies and slapped a name on. Listing potentially dozens of non-notable entries at each parent species article gives them WP:UNDUE prominence and takes the focus off the encyclopedic content that actually serves readers. What does the audience learn about the plant species from a plain list of cultivar names? Nothing, except that some of them are silly.
(Side note - I put a strike through your original merge vote so it's more clear for the closer that you changed to delete). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 24 December 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. While this article hasn't been deleted, dlthwave's comments about mass-creation of poor quality stubs is absolutely correct and a reflection of current sentiment (as previously demonstrated at ANI quite recently). The proposal to stop the automated mass creation of stubs that will be put forward in the new year for consideration as potential policy will hopefully address this in a formulated way. Daniel (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Litva, Kursk Oblast[edit]

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

A user has created over 400 geo articles with the same set of sources, using the same template with only slight variations. Sources such as census tables and the distance to the nearest railroad bot are insufficient to establish GNG, so we're left with the question of whether a rural locality counts as a legally recognized populated place. I'm nominating this one partly as a test to see whether a mass TNT deletion is in order. –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this hostility come from? Here I explained that I am not a bot – now you're going to suggest deleting the rest of a few hundred of my articles? Autopatrolled ThWiki1910 16:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This user must stop creating low-quality stubs immediately. Per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_66#Automated_creation_of_stubs, this "large-scale semi-/automated article creation task" requires a BRFA. I do not believe that there is a consensus that we want mass-creation of pages for places with 1 person. It is highly unusal to list distances to the border or a Transport section with distances to highways and airports. Reywas92Talk 20:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have elementary respect for the work of other people in Wikipedia. You see a similar page without seeing working hours that have been devoted to their creation. Try some of these articles to read, check sources, then you will see differences and you may understand why it could not create a bot. Creating a few pages a day you call mass? A bot would do it in a few minutes, not in a few months. If my logical arguments do not impress you, then do not limit yourself and apply to pick up my autopatrolled or immediately to block my account. Paranoic deleting action for over 420 articles? If English GNG allows the existence of small villages, in which there are often more houses than residents, I do not understand your campaign. Instead of geographical data, you expect historical essays with Napoleon in the background, letters of famous people who were born there or maybe curiosities like finding mammoth bone? With these places there are no sources on such topics, and this is the most important in every encyclopedia. ThWiki1910 08:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ThWiki1910, are you familiar with our guideline on villages WP:GEOLAND? We do allow articles on small villages, but only if they A) are "legally recognized" (i.e. incorporated/part of the area's administrative structure) or B) have significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. So yes, we do require more than just geographic data to meet these requirements. If sufficient sourcing does not exist, then we do not create an article on the topic. –dlthewave ☎ 17:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOLAND: Populated, legally recognized places... – all localities whose my articles concerned meet this most important condition. They are listed in the records of administrative units (they have an OKATO ID given). This is obvious. ThWiki1910 23:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, Litva is not its own administrative unit but rather is a rural locality governed by the Bolshezhirovsky selsoviet. Most national geographic databases such as OKATO will assign identification numbers to all sorts of villages, localities, etc. regardless of administrative status, but we typically do not accept this alone as legal recognition. I'm having difficulty accessing OKATO so would you be willing to clarify how the database describes Litva? –dlthewave ☎ 02:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An older identifier is OKTMO. OKATO is a newer, but both identifiers are interrelated (a bit like Celsius and Fahrenheit degrees). I have a difficulty to put a link to OKATO in infobox, because it is converted (in a "magical" way) on OKTMO. If Infobox showed OKATO, the link to the database would be: OKATO 38244831015. For OKTMO is: OKTMO 38644412316. Exchange OKATO to OKTMO. My all articles have sources (links): to selsovjet (the unit where the rural locality is situated), to real estate report, to postcode... What do you want more? After your correction, Litva, Kursk Oblast is only suitable for deleting – one line. Why? Because you can not admit your mistake? Be serious. I am. ThWiki1910 1:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying OKATO/OKTMO. I'm not seeing anything in the database entry that establishes this as a legally recognized settlement. The problem with the other information you added is that it is not specific to Litva. Yes, the selsoviet has a website with a subpage for Bolshezhirovsky village council, but nothing about Litva. Postcode 307114 encompasses several selo, and the webpage does not mention Litva. Likewise, the railway page lists a station that is quite a distance away and again makes no mention of Litva. This brings us to the real estate report. This is just an a cadastral property ownership map which does nothing to establish notability. You're right: After we strip away the superfluous "cruft", there's not really anything left that could justify having an article.
What we need is significant coverage, or actual in-depth prose that somebody wrote about Litva, from multiple sources. Something that we could use to write an article that covers more than just calculated statistics. Without that, we simply can't have an article, no matter how much work you put into it. –dlthewave ☎ 13:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who "we"? More like you yourself, unable to admit to being wrong. And did you understand this much? Are you suggesting that this locality (khutor) does not exist just because you cannot deal with sources in Russian? Was it really so difficult for you to find, for example, this document (pdf) on the website of selsoviet? You deleted almost the entire article without checking the link "Real estate report: Litva" because what? Don't you know that a postcode usually covers several localities? The fact that an idiot, using the GNIS database, treated the many mills as settlements, should affect the deletion of one in the series of full-fledged articles on real localities in Russia? So many explanations and still the same? Having fun? You are not really waiting for what I will write, so I inform you that all my articles I create, like "Litva, Kursk Oblast" (after your "corrections", it's simply trash), have reliable sources. If you do not agree with this, I only wish you (and your two loyal friends) a pleasant deletion of over 400 articles. ThWiki1910 0:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree with DLthewave, a cadastral survey merely documents land ownership, it says nothing really about the settlement itself. These do not appear to be “fully fledged articles”, instead they appear to be bare listings padded out with information that is not actually about the settlement. Advise the creator to look more at news media coverage, book coverage (particularly histories), academic coverage and so-forth. The temptation to go through a database and create hundreds of basically-identical articles that say nothing really about the subject should be avoided. FOARP (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion on the quality of the references, though? Some of them don't seem to actually mention Litva. –dlthewave ☎ 05:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling a bit, I must admit, as I'm not able to open some of them, and I'm v poor at anything in Cyrillic. However, this (pointed at above by User:ThWiki1910) is an official document of the relevant selsoviet and confirms that the settlement of Litva is part of it. I can't access the census report but am more than happy to trust SportingFlyer's statement above that it includes Litva. That's enough for a Keep on the present footing. (There's a fundamental problem with the term "legally-recognised", which is far too vague to be of any use outside the US - in any other context it just doesn't equate to "self-governing administrative unit", although it seems that many editors (as above) want it to mean that: it doesn't, without a very full discussion which has not taken place).The alternative solution here would surely be an article on the Bolshezhirovsky Selsoviet listing the component khutors to which this and the other articles cd redirect. As always, WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While waiting for a reply from Tamingimpala, which it seems may be a long time coming, I'll add that the sources include hardcopy ones, which I see no reason to doubt are bona fide official sources. As above, the article contains what is required by WP:GEOLAND, which is to say, confirmation of legal recognition and verification that it's a populated settlement. WP:ATD is always to be borne in mind, of course, but it's not necessary here, and for that reason I've withdrawn my comment above about redirecting.Ingratis (talk) 18:16, 27 December 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buddleja 'Ingeborg'[edit]

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

PROD declined due to declined PROD from 2012. Consensus has been established via discussion at WP:PLANTS and previous AfDs/PRODs that individual cultivars are not presumed notable in the same way as natural species, and must meet GNG to have a standalone article. Database and commercial catalog entries are not considered sufficient for this purpose.

The Hatch book is a comprehensive work that attempts to compile and list all cultivars. Snippet view shows that it generally spends about a sentence or two on them at most so I consider it database-equivalent as it is not selective. I found no independent significant coverage of this cultivar (searches in Stuart & Trees & Shrubs both negative).

At the time of the 2012 de-PROD, article creator even stated "Many cultivars are of obscure origin, and poorly referenced in literature." - in other words, even the creator knew there was no sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • My concern about redirecting vs deleting is that since the cultivars are non-notable, they shouldn't be mentioned at the species article, and it's generally frowned on to have redirects that aren't mentioned in the target article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually a note to the closer since I made the above comment in an apparent brain-fart state - RD to B. globosa would be totally incorrect for this one as it's a hybrid of B. fallowiana and B. davidii. Closing as redirect to either would be technically not feasible as it can't be redirected to two places, and there's no metric for determining which species would be more "primary" to redirect to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The consensus at the WT:PLANTS discussion was not to merge, that is an inaccurate reading. I hope that the closer reads that discussion to confirm that. There are literally hundreds of named Buddleja cultivars per species including hybrids, so merging any of these articles to the parent would be lending totally undue importance to potentially a ton of content about non-notable topics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to delete based on discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja globosa 'HCM98017' Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:53, 24 December 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 and move to Desecration of Akbar's tomb. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sikandra[edit]

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

There are four citations on the page and none of them mention any battle, the incident Rajaram looting the tomb of Akbar is made into a battle page where no battle was fought. I searched for it in many later mughal history books and on google books too but I can't find any source mentioning this battle. It was also created by a single purpose sockpuppet who has been blocked indefinitely. Hiensrt (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the link directly takes us to the search term which do mention looting of Akbar's tomb at Sikandra but no battle. And these are the links that were provided by the creator of the article, so this is what he had.Hiensrt (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of the article's title, the article's content is about the desecration of Akbar's tomb, which is a notable as well as a historically important event. So the page should be moved to Desecration of Akbar's tomb, as the sources use exactly this or a similar title while describing this incident.
Note that Rajaram actually attacked the site of Akbar's tomb, i.e. Sikandara, thrice, and two of his attacks were specifically to desecrate the Akbar's tomb. Also, he did lose 400 men in confrontation with the imperial force during one of these attacks. And we do need to mention those failed attempts in the article, as they are relevant to the topic. It seems the page creator relied on the snippet views available at Google Books, which resulted in the misrepresentation of a few details as well as the article's wrong title. Anyway, here are a few sources giving a full account of Rajaram's desecration of Akbar's tomb:
quotation

... In 1685, Rajaram, a Jat zamindar at Sinsini, eighty kilometres west of Agra, strengthened a strongly defended fortress of hardened mud. Shielded by difficult terrain and bamboo/scrub forests these forts could beat off all but the most determined assaults. Already refusing to pay the revenue, Rajaram led his jat clansmen to plunder traffic on the royal road. They even attempted to enter Sikandra to despoil Akbar's tomb, but were driven back by the faujdar. ...

In late 1687, Aurangzeb sent Bidar Bakht, his young grandson, north with troops to suppress the Jats. In the interim the newly appointed governor of the Punjab, Mahabat Khan, a former Hyderabad officer, had encamped near Sikandra on the Yumuna river. The Jats boldly attacked his camp in force and only retired after losing four hundred casualties.

Rajaram's Jats outmaneuvered the local imperial forces and occupied Sikandra where they succeeded in looting Akbar's tomb. According to Manucci:40
Already angered by the demands of the governors and faujdars for revenue, a great number of them [Jats] assembled and marched to the mausoleum of that great conqueror Akbar. Against him living they could effect nothing; they therefore wreaked vengeance on his sepulchre. They began their pillage by breaking in the great gates of bronze which it had, robbing the valuable precious stones and plates ... of gold and silver, and destroying what they were not able to carry away. Dragging out the bones of Akbar, they threw them angrily into the fire and burnt them.

Whether the Jats actually seized Akbar's remains, the desecration of the tomb was as Manucci puts it "the greatest affront possible to the house and lineage of Taimur-i lang (Timur)."

quotation

... Early in 1688, Raja Ram attacked Mahabat Khan, who on his way to Lahore was encamped near Sikandara. A fierce fight ensued in which Raja Ram was finally overpowered and driven back after losing 400 men. The casualties on the other side included 150 dead and 40 wounded.23

After a short while, Raja Ram reappeared at Sikandara and taking advantage of the delay in coming of Shaista Khan, the governor-designate of Agra, he attacked and plundered Akbar's mausoleum. The Jat leader carried away the precious articles of gold and silver, carpets, lamps, etc. and destroyed what he could not carry. According to Manucci the Jats dragged out the bones of Akbar, threw them angrily into fire and burnt them. Muhammad Baqa (the Naib of Khan-i-Jahan) who was then at Agra, did nothing to frustrate the rebels. As a punishment, therefore, his mansab was reduced by 500 and that of Khan-i-Jahan by 1000 sawars.24 The Jats also ransacked the villages, set aside for the support of Taj Mahal. Some Jats ravaged the environs of Khurja, while others captured the local Mughal officers at Palwal.25

One noteworthy fact is that the local Mughal officials and soldiers in general, winked at the disobedience of the Jats and even secretly entered into collusion with them to share the booty grabbed by them.26 It is also to be noted that Muhammad Baqa, the deputy of Khan-i-Jahan at Agra, had remained inactive while Raja Ram robbed Akbar's tomb. This exasperated Aurangzeb and he reduced the deputy's Mansab by 500 and that of Khan-i-Jahan by 1000 sawars.27 Meanwhile, the daring and audacity of the Jats alarmed Aurangzeb and he ordered Raja Ram Singh (who was at Kabul) to chastise Raja Ram. But due to his sudden death the Raja could not resume his charge.28

quotation

... Mir Ibrahim, newly entitled Mahabat Khan who was then encamped near Sikandara on the banks of the Jamuna, while on his way to Punjab to take charge of his viceroyalty was attacked by Rajaram. But Rajaram was repulsed, after a long and stubborn fight, with the loss of 400 men, while the Mughals loss was 190 killed and wounded. Rajaram soon returned to the scene, and profiting by the delay in coming of Shaista Khan, the new subehdar of Agra, plundered Akbar's tomb, taking away its carpets, gold and silver vessels and lamp, etc. and damaging the building. Khan i-Jahan's deputy (naib), Muhammad Waqa, did nothing to check him.3 They also set on fire the villages which had been assigned for the maintenance of Taj Mahal.4 Reports were reaching the court daily that a group of Jats had plundered the pargana of Khurja and arrested the thanedar of Palwal.5
The plundering of Akbar's tomb, and the parganas of Khurja and Palwal caused great concern to Aurangzeb. He angrily reduced Khan- i Jahan's mansab,1 and appointed Raja Ram Singh of Amber as faujdar of Mathura to crush Rajaram Jat.2 The vakil at the Mughal court requested the Maharaja to reach Mathura as early as possible, because the Jats menace had become so great that even the fort of Ranthambhore and the territorial integrity of Amber (Jaipur) State was threatened.3 Apart from this Ghalib Beg was sent to establish some thanas in the Mathura area. It is quite clear that the Jat uprising effected not only the narrow limits of Brij, but the areas right from the Duab to Ranthambhore. The Jats in this entire area, it seems, were on the move. But before Raja Ram Singh of Amber could reach the disturbed area, he passed away.4

[Few details about the second and the third sources quoted above: Dr. Girish Chandra Dwivedi served as head of the History Department at Kashi Vidyapith. And his above book is based on his PhD thesis prepared under the personal supervision of historian Ishwari Prasad. The book is probably the most in-depth source about the Jats' role in the Mughal Empire. Unsurprisingly, multiple historians specialising/knowledgeable in the Indian history of that era – e.g. Irfan Habib,[1] Eugenia Vanina,[2] Shail Mayaram[3], etc. – suggest/recommend it. Similarly, the book of Dr. Ram Pande is also based on his accepted PhD thesis (see here), which he prepared under the supervision of historian Arthur Llewellyn Basham, and is suggested by Eugenia Vanina.[2]]
As far as the historical importance of this event is concerned, multiple prominent subject experts, including the historians John F. Richards[4] and Catherine B. Asher,[5] describe it as an affront to the Mughal empire. This event also escalated the Jat-Mughal confrontations to a different level, as from here onwards, Mughals also summoned Kachhwaha rulers of Amber (Jaipur) to subdue Jats.
Finally, the weird act of burning Akbar's remains sounds like the last rights performed among Hindus. And it does have a Hindu connection: this was done to avenge Akbar's matrimonial alliances with Hindu women![6][7] Unsurprisingly, scholars cite it as a notable example among the notorious ones of its kind.[8]
References

References

  1. ^ Habib, Irfan (2005) [2003]. "The Eighteenth Century in Indian Economic History". In Marshall, P. J. (ed.). The Eighteenth Century in Indian History: Evolution or Revolution?. Oxford University Press. p. 116. ISBN 978-0-19-567814-7. The detailed political history of the Jat kingdom has been painstakingly reconstructed by Girish Chandra Dwivedi, The Jats: Their Role in the Mughal Empire, Bangalore, 1989.
  2. ^ a b Vanina, Eugenia (June 2020). "Princely Crime and Colonial Punishment: A Murder Case in Historical Investigation". Indian Historical Review. 47 (1). SAGE Publishing: 8. doi:10.1177/0376983620922414. The history of the Jat uprisings and wars is discussed in Pande, Bharatpur Upto 1826; Girish Chandra Dwivedi, The Jats; ...
  3. ^ Mayaram, Shail (2003). Against History, Against State: Counterperspectives from the Margins. Columbia University Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-231-12730-1. For accounts of regional political systems such as those of the Jats, ... see Girish Chandra Dwivedi, The Jats: Their Role in the Mughal Empire (New Delhi: Arnold Publishers, 1989); ...
  4. ^ Richards, John F. (2001) [1993]. The Mughal Empire. The New Cambridge History of India: The Mughals and their Contemporaries. Vol. 5. Cambridge University Press. p. 251. ISBN 978-0-52-125119-8. ... the desecration of the tomb was as Manucci puts it "the greatest affront possible to the house and lineage of Taimur-i lang (Timur).
  5. ^ Asher, Catherine B. (2001) [1992]. Architecture of Mughal India. The New Cambridge History of India: The Mughals and their Contemporaries. Vol. 4 (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-521-26728-1. Contemporary accounts describing the tomb's desecration by plundering Jats in the late seventeenth century indicate how sumptuous was the tomb's interior. Gold, silver and precious stones as well as all the carpets were pillaged. Significantly, the attack on Akbar's mausoleum was perceived as a blow to Mughal prestige, suggesting its continuing importance as a dynastic symbol.
  6. ^ Ahmad, Aziz (1964). Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment. Oxford University Press. p. 95. The most ironical incident in the Jāt history was their desecration of Akbar's tomb as a vengeance for his having married Hindu women, ...
  7. ^ Barlas, Asma (2018) [1995]. Democracy, Nationalism, and Communalism: The Colonial Legacy in South Asia. Routledge. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-367-01181-9. Incidentally, Akbar's exploits also led to the desecration of his tomb by militant Hindus outraged by his matrimonial alliances with Hindu Rajput women.
  8. ^ Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1996). "Before the Leviathan: Sectarian Violence and the State Pre-Colonial India". In Basu, Kaushik; Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (eds.). Unravelling the Nation: Sectarian Conflict and India's Secular Identity. Penguin Books. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-14-025758-8. On the other hand, during the wars of the eighteenth century, the destruction and desecration of Muslim religious sites (and even royal tombs) was not unknown; the case of Akbar's tomb at Sikandra, desecrated by the Jats of Bharatpur, is one of them.
- NitinMlk (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:14, 19 December 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 to delete. There is significant support to merge the content, even among the keep and delete !votes. I’m not quite comfortable calling it as consensus to merge, but that question can be resolved via the ordinary editorial process. Please note that “delete and merge” conflicts with the site license as Wikipedia:Merge and delete explains. Chaser (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of COVID-19 deaths in South Africa[edit]

List of COVID-19 deaths in South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:Articles for deletion/List of deaths due to COVID-19 in South Africa. There is no need to have country-specific articles pertaining to notable COVID-19 deaths. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the second sentence? Each person on the list is notable, and does already have their own article. The purpose of list articles is to make information by subject easily accessible. We have List of sovereign states in spite of each state already being notable and having its own article, because accessing that information in one place is useful, as here. Greenman (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Supercopone@, I strongly disagree that it "serves zero purpose" as it was a fork of the Covid-19 pandemic in South Africa article. The list existed there and it was forked as the original article started getting too long.--Discott (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to List of deaths due to COVID-19. Unless that list gets too long and they decide to split parts of it off into list like this, per country. Dream Focus 15:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quick additional note: the original argument that the article is "Redundant" is no longer the case as the original COVID-19 in South Africa article is now too long to support this list being hosted on that article thereby supporting the forking of this to a new list article.--Discott (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist that the length of the page is the problem, then you should raise the idea of splitting the statistics and the timeline. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is the only one of its kind. Why should it not be deleted? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those who participated in that AfD suggested that the article should be split by year but not by country. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most don't care about people they have never heard of, so splitting by country makes more sense. That's a discussion for a talk page though. If people decide to do it by year instead, then this can be turned into a redirect later on. Dream Focus 03:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:13, 19 December 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 13:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural monuments damaged in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict[edit]

List of cultural monuments damaged in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTPURP. To the best of my knowledge, none of the provided sources have discussed the topic as a group or set, and though it should be noted that I do not have access to all of them, no editor has asserted that they do contain such coverage. Further, a WP:BEFORE search has not turned up any such coverage in reliable sources.

There has been coverage of potential subsets of the list as a group or set, in particular the destruction of Armenian cultural legacy, and if there was coverage of the destruction of Azerbaijani cultural legacy it would be appropriate to group the two lists under WP:NPOV, but as with the broader topic I have been unable to identify such sources, and it appears other editors have also been unable to do so.

The list as it stands is also largely incoherent, with elements such as a "Small mosque in Armenia", without any additional details to its identification, being included. While some of this can be corrected under WP:DUE, most of it would, in the absence of reliable sources, require WP:OR to correct, in order to allow us to determine an appropriate scope of the list and criteria for inclusion.

Note: Article was nominated for deletion two months ago, with a result of "no consensus". The closer noted that the quality of the discussion was poor, and failed to address the question of whether the sources in the article sustain it in the light of WP:N, WP:RS and WP:NOR. As such, it may be advisable for participants to focus their contributions to the discussion in that direction. BilledMammal (talk) 13:20, 19 December 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 delete. Per WP:CSD#G5, the creator of this article did so in violation of a previous block (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarahkenny12340), and the article has no substantial edits by other editors. Mz7 (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Ninte - Record Producer[edit]

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

In-spite of being improving the Draft:Jack Ninte - Record Producer, the creator User:Sarahkenny12340 tried to move this into mainspace. Draft rejected by Delta fiver, Theroadislong and S0091. No changes after the last draft rejection. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC. DMySon (talk) 13:00, 19 December 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 13:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etisalat Tower 1[edit]

Etisalat Tower 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No historical or important value, plus no information or references MarkTHE19 (talk) 11:28, 19 December 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. Sandstein 09:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Star[edit]

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

The article says it is obscure. The text was copied from terribletvshows.miraheze.org, that has a CC-by-SA license but no attribution was given. Neither the show nor the ryoga316 YouTuber have significant coverage. Mvqr (talk) 11:26, 19 December 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. Daniel (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MuslimMirror.com[edit]

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

A non notable online website. The creator wants to promote it by creating a page here. fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is one of the main news site of Indian Muslims. The websites has been quoted sufficiently by main stream media. The editor in Chief Syed Zubair Ahmad has been interviewed by various News papers on this project. Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu and Indian Express have carried stories about Muslim Mirror. Penandpencil2021 (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Penandpencil2021: Could you provide links to the stories about the publication? ((u|Sdkb)) talk 18:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb:, please read How Muslim voices are breaking stereotypes online published by leading daily of India, Hindustan Times, They're demolishing Muslim stereotypes, a tweet at a time by Times of India and On Their Watch by Indian Express. These are top three leading English dailies of India which have given significant coverage to this news website due to its importance in covering issues related to under represented Muslim Minority community of India. The vernacular press also regularly takes its stories from Muslim Mirror. Penandpencil2021 (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Penandpencil2021: Please indicate any conflict of interest you may have. The article appears to have been written with a view to pass our notability standards with a section called Notability. Please rewrite the article in a more objective manner. Jupitus Smart 18:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply- User:Jupitus, there is no conflict of interest. I removed the heading notability. I don't want any undue praise for the subject. It's okay if someone edit it s required. Penandpencil2021 (talk) 13:50, 20 December 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 10:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ismail Jasem Mohamed Alhosani[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG. Barely scrapes through NFOOTY by playing one cup game 3 years ago, which isn't showing notability per established consensus. BlameRuiner (talk) 09:11, 19 December 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maul- und Klauenseuche[edit]

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

A 1950 East German documentary about foot-and-mouth disease? Can't possibly satisfy WP:NFILM. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A documentary about Karl Marx maybe. Foot-and-mouth disease, very unlikely, even in East Germany. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As well, presumed coverage does not contribute towards notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:55, 19 December 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. Consensus is that a redirect would not be appropriate since this will not be mentioned at the target article per WT:PLANTS consensus. (See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja globosa 'HCM98017') Star Mississippi 20:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buddleja globosa 'Lemon Ball'[edit]

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

Consensus has been established via discussion at WP:PLANTS and previous AfDs/PRODs that individual cultivars are not presumed notable in the same way as natural species, and must meet GNG to have a standalone article. Database and commercial catalog entries (such as the citation to Buddleja List 2011-2012 Longstock Park Nursery) are not considered sufficient for this purpose.

I found no significant independent coverage of this cultivar. The content at Trees and Shrubs Online is a scant few sentences, and the entry in Stuart is little more. Aside from that, all hits I found were trivial mentions or commercial listings. There is not enough here to substantiate a GNG pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • My concern about redirecting vs deleting is that since the cultivars are non-notable, they shouldn't be mentioned at the species article, and it's generally frowned on to have redirects that aren't mentioned in the target article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, should not be redirected. Anyone googling for Buddleja globosa Lemon Ball will automatically find the potential redirect target anyway, and if we do redirects for every non-notable variety of any ornamental plant we're going to have a truly enormous number of redirects with no useful value. Elemimele (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus at the WT:PLANTS discussion was not to merge, that is an inaccurate reading. I hope that the closer reads that discussion to confirm that. There are literally hundreds of named Buddleja cultivars per species including hybrids, so merging any of these articles to the parent would be lending totally undue importance to potentially a ton of content about non-notable topics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to delete based on discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja globosa 'HCM98017' Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:53, 24 December 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 11:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Schweizer[edit]

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

Businessman does not seem to meet WP:NBIO- independent coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE announcements of him becoming CEO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:47, 19 December 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. Keeping per WP:SNOW. Improve and expand the article!

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Web3[edit]

Web3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Various issues:

  1. Although there are a handful of sources that use the word "web3", coverage is essentially insubstantial or speculative, and some sources are not reliable. We are left only with sources that say "web3" but do not give a definition, actively say that it isn't something that exists and isn't well-defined, and sources that rely primarily on a non-independent source.
  1. With little more than speculation to source this article, the article we have relies for its notability almost completely on the fact that some people are talking about future plans. This would seem to me to be a concern re. WP:CRYSTAL, particularly points 2 and 5. With no clear definition of "Web3 technologies" other than as a synonym for either DAOs or public blockchains more generally, what remains is either product announcements and rumours (i.e. speculation as to companies' future definition, development, and use of the technology) or merely the next iteration of a systematic name.
  2. This article makes leaps in its citations that make me suspect its writing is not documentary, but rather participates in a desire to will "web3" into existence. The reference to the sentence "self-sovereign identity allows users to identify themselves without relying on an authentication system such as OAuth..." [29] describes how in theory Bitcoin and Ethereum could provide cross-platform identity services, not a thing called web3. More, this kind of use of Bitcoin and Ethereum is comparatively rare in my experience, and their prevalence is not supported in the reference, which, again, is a marketing blog.
  3. The contents of the "concept" section summarize that this emerging technology has not really emerged yet, and therefore it is WP:TOOSOON to have an article on it.
  4. What is left once the speculation and unrelated information is stripped away is an article about how some people are saying "web3" while they say "blockchain", and not much more. It's fairly clear that unless and until the term enters broad enough use that a widely-accepted definition emerges (and it is not certain that it ever will), this cannot develop into a thorough article. We ought to delete it. FalconK (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, an ambiguous term, but the article is very useful as orientation for the reader. I came here due to some 'news' wanting to know what the hubbub was about. The article helped, even if the term may be bull. Please distinguish between BS and a needed article _about_ BS. The latter can be very useful. Shenme (talk) 04:31, 22 December 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 11:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian winners on the PGA and LPGA Tours[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Canadian winners on the PGA and LPGA Tours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As I stated earlier on the WikiProject Golf talkpage, this article strikes me as an obvious example of WP:OR and "synthesis." While a number of reliable third-party sources are used, I believe they have been "synthesized" to create an entirely new, "original" page. From my research, I have not found anything on the internet that could be used as direct source for this article. In addition, the author of List of Canadian winners on the PGA and LPGA Tours has yet to provide one.

I would like to hear opinions from other members below.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 03:35, 19 December 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 Progress Rail. ✗plicit 10:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Rail GT38CU-3[edit]

Progress Rail GT38CU-3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searching online for this train, I'm unable to find any significant coverage of this model outside of Wikipedia itself (if you can call this stub significant coverage). I'd expect coverage to be online, since the article says the train only has been built since 2019. As a result, this fails WP:GNG. Per WP:NPRODUCT, I propose that this article be redirected to Progress Rail, which appears to be the company most closely associated with this product, if there is a source that can be used to verify that this model of locomotive actually exists. If such a source cannot be found, deletion would be appropriate. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 03:33, 19 December 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 merge to Batuque FC. Consensus exists between 'delete' and 'merge' not to retain, choosing this option as has most support and per ATD. Daniel (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Batuque FC players[edit]

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

WP:NOTSTATS. Unnecessary list - there is already a category for this. It's not like there are many notable Batuque FC players either. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:20, 19 December 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) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Flannery[edit]

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

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. While she has a local reputation, she has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article has three reviews of her shows. A Google search brings up a write-up from her gallery (which may be a coop). The article has had a notablility tag since 2010 with ho noticeable improvements.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Thanks I have added those citations to the article. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:57, 19 December 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. Chinese RS with significant coverage were found, happy to withdraw the nomination. signed, Rosguill talk 14:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hsu[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, and is currently cited to a single, not terribly credible-looking source. I wasn't able to find any additional coverage in English. I am unable to effectively search in Chinese, so that is one possible place to look for coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 03:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etc. And please, have mercy. I *literally* am not fully available for this discussion and it would be scummy burn the house down with my back turned. Give at least time till Week 52 for me to fully be ready to talk this.

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=adam+hsu
  2. ^ https://books.google.fi/books?id=6NoDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA26&dq=adam+hsu&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiV96mL0u_0AhUymYsKHeGlDX0Q6AF6BAgHEAI#v=onepage&q=adam%20hsu&f=false
  3. ^ https://books.google.fi/books?id=LM-4YqzVmdMC&pg=PA215&dq=adam+hsu&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj06_q20-_0AhXns4sKHVaACtw4HhDoAXoECAkQAg#v=onepage&q=adam%20hsu&f=false
  4. ^ https://books.google.fi/books?id=9opbFIS9MHsC&pg=PA36&dq=adam+hsu&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjF1rmO1O_0AhVHw4sKHREJCBI4MhDoAXoECAkQAg#v=onepage&q=adam%20hsu&f=false
  5. ^ https://books.google.fi/books?id=WhB0DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA374&dq=adam+hsu&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiN39nZ1O_0AhVkx4sKHUt5AQ84PBDoAXoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=adam%20hsu&f=false
  6. ^ https://books.google.fi/books?id=oz8QEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT174&dq=adam+hsu&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiN39nZ1O_0AhVkx4sKHUt5AQ84PBDoAXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=adam%20hsu&f=false
  7. ^ https://books.google.fi/books?id=hf0QEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT36&dq=adam+hsu&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwktiT1e_0AhWslosKHXU2C9A4RhDoAXoECAoQAg#v=onepage&q=adam%20hsu&f=false

-- TrickShotFinn (talk) 10:23, 19 December 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 Withdrawn. Bungle's sourcing has shown this did receive some significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. As there is not any outstanding Delete comments I have withdrawn this request. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aswang (1994 film)[edit]

Aswang (1994 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was a contested PROD due to it having reviews. This film fails to meet the required criteria in WP:NFILM. The reviews are by unknown critics as in there is no identified author for the 2 provided. I could not find any better. There is no indication of it even being close to meeting any other of the criteria. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for reviews to be accepted towards WP:NFILM is not that it comes from a reliable source but from a nationally known critic, without an actual byline we can't confirm this. Reviews in themselves are not reliable sources as they are opinion pieces. This negates both the Filmthreat and TVGuide reviews as we have no way to know who actually wrote them, the same way we would negate any other news source without an identified author. The Rotten Tomatoes review is actually this one and I would accept that as being potentially a nationally known critic. That only leaves us with one acceptable review. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:20, 19 December 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. Withdrawing. signed, Rosguill talk 01:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daman Mills[edit]

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

No significant coverage available, citations are limited to routine casting announcements and softball interviews, does not meet WP:GNG. It has been asserted by the article's creator that WP:NACTOR is met, but my understanding is that voice actors, and particularlly English dub credits for anime do not comprise significant roles as far as the guideline goes (and for good reason too, because as we can see there is no in depth coverage whatsoever despite a long filmography list). signed, Rosguill talk 00:55, 19 December 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. Withdrawn by nominator following provision of sources indicating significant coverage. No delete votes at time of closing. Fenix down (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friðþjófur Thorsteinsson[edit]

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

Lacks significance of notability. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have cleaned up the article and added several sources to it. Alvaldi (talk) 11:18, 19 December 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.
More