< August 28	August 30 >

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Alfonsinist Movement[edit]

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

In a nutshell: this is an article about a political party that does not exist.

Contrary to the claims of the article, Moreau, Lopez, and Santoro did not leave the UCR to create this "Movimiento Nacional Alfonsinista" (MNA) party and then add this party to the larger coalition of the Front for Victory, now Frente de Todos. They simply joined that coalition personally. This "Movimiento Nacional Alfonsinista" is just a slogan, a theatrical act or whatever, but not a political party. All legally recognized political parties in Argentina as of March 31, 2022 are listed here: the MNA is not there. This news report details all the minor parties that belong to the Frente de Todos coalition when it was registered for the 2021 elections: again, the MNA is not there. Reference 4 (this one) claims that it was a founding party of the 2017 "Citizen Unity" coalition; but again, the reference itself lists all such parties and not the MNA. Reference 2 is only about Moreau being ready to give a speech somewhere. And no, the article in Wikipedia in Spanish is a bit longer but still lacks any reference that proves that this political party exists as such. Their reference 3 even lists the number of people affiliated to it... with a reference that makes no mention of the MNA. Cambalachero (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Argentina. Cambalachero (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no coherent rationale for deletion presented. It might be that the MNA didn't form a formalized organization, but informally structured movements can also warrant Wikipedia articles. From a quick search, we find plenty mentions of this movement - https://quedigital.com.ar/politica/con-macri-no-volvimos-los-90-sino-al-24-de-marzo-de-1976/ , https://www.diarioepoca.com/592328-el-alfonsinismo-y-forja-apuntan-a-una-amplia-construccion-progresista , etc. --Soman (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Again, this is not a "movement" (even if it claims so in the name), but just a tag for Leopoldo Moreau's modest political activities. It has zero achievements or significance of its own. Moreau himself is notable, but notability is not inherited. Cambalachero (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but the argument isn't convincing. See for example here: https://www.facebook.com/mnaforjamdp , a local Mar del Plata branch of MNA, with photos of members of MNA with MNA flags and MNA t-shirts. The argument that MNA wouldn't exist as a movement doesn't seem to hold up. Here a photo of the Argentine president holding up a MNA t-shirt, an at MNA event: https://www.yrigoyen.com.ar/los-votos-del-alfonsinismo-estuvieron-en-el-54-por-ciento-de-cristina-y-se-mantienen-en-unidad-ciudadana/ etc, etc --Soman (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's the old trick of the photo of a multitude taken from a very close angle, so that nobody can notice that they are not really a multitude but just 20 guys. A bus stop during rush hour gets more people than that. Also, Facebook, anyone can make a facebook page. Also, no activity since 2019? In any case, the point is that although it may be correct that a political movement like Peronism or Chavism does not need to be formally registered as a party to be notable, here we are talking about a "movement" without enough people to completely fill a studio, let alone have any actual meaningful relevance for national politics that can be credited to them and not to the bigger parties Moreau has been in. As for the Yrigoyen page, that's an interview at a partisan page that is little more than a blog. Moreau is notable, but not because of such pages. And of course that Cristina Kirchner would take a photo with their T-Shirt, politicians running for office just love to do this stunts all the time. Cambalachero (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I accept the nomination's statement that this movement is largely a personal vehicle for Moreau, I reject the view that the movement is not notable for that reason. The subject has received multiple counts of independent national coverage (e.g.) and is a feature of recent Argentine politics. The nomination's rationale that movement acting as personal vehicles are non-notable ignores the significant contribution and relevance of such groups to democracies globally. Practically half of Ukraine's political parties could be deemed non-notable by the same logic. Acceptance of relevance is not the same as moral acceptance. SFB 18:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St Nicolas Park[edit]

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

Lacks any real notability, has no sources and covers just a housing area north of Nuneaton not really a suburb or anything. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is an OS settlement[1] but could perhaps be redirected to Nuneaton#Districts and suburbs of Nuneaton if NN. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)*'[reply]

Comment - It gets a couple of mentions in papers, although these are incidental. At least one incidental book mention as well. There may be more, because the name is reasonably common even with that spelling. I think I would like to research this one more but at this stage notability is not established. Counter this with WP:GEOLAND appears to favour allowing populated named locations though. Article needs a lot of work but it appears that there is enough for an encylopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mentioned in e.g. [2] although not significant coverage. Nevertheless plenty of news and other coverage. Clearly is a district of Nuneaton, with associated history and community information. Churches are listed in a church directory, pubs get a mention in directories etc The article is in a poor state and I have templated it because of its failure to mention any sources, but it passed WP:GEOLAND. Sufficient sources very likely do exist to make an encyclopaedic article. Aplogies for not getting back to this one sooner. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the same basis - clearly a well known area per its use in local and national media (albeit the ever unreliable Daily Mail), I think it passes the second GEOLAND criterion. Waggers TALK 13:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Horeston Grange, Warwickshire[edit]

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

Another page with lack of clarification and seems to be of no notability DragonofBatley (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to be an OS settlement though the OS doesn't mention it. Its in the unparished area of Nuneaton[3] and is mentioned at Nuneaton#Districts and suburbs of Nuneaton so perhaps merge there. It is mentioned in a few Books but it doesn't seem like anything substantial. Also unless deleted it should probably be moved to Horeston Grange as it doesn't appear to be ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My searches are not coming up with anything that shows notability. The lack of recognition in OS maps is key, because WP:GEOLAND says Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. Even then, there needs to be enough notable information to make a page. I want to think on this one a bit longer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the place isn't even an OS settlement its probably not legally-recognized but a redirect to the town would probably be preferable to deletion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some sources that mention the place are ^[1] which is widely cited. Also mentioned in books, [4], (although I did not find significant coverage in a book yet). It is mentioned in news quite a lot, e.g. this BBC report [5], so definitely a populated place known by that name, a district of Nuneaton with associated history. I think sources exist sufficient to develop the article, although clearly the article is in a poor state. I have added a template as there are no citations, but the state of the article is not a reaason to delete (unless per WP:TNT, and on this occasion I think what is in the article is probably right, just unsourced, so don't think it needs TNT). Apologies for not getting back to this sooner necessitating a relist. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Brown, W. "Attleborough: Palaeolithic finds from Horeston Grange (SP 3780 9150)." West Midlands Archaeology 36 (1993): 81-82.

Keep - it is recognised on OS maps (see here, zoom in on the map if necessary to see Horeston Grange marked). It's also an historic site - albeit a locally listed one instead of having a national listing, listed as one of "England's cities, towns and most noted villages" in a gazetter from 1715. That's all from a very cursory search, I'm sure some more in-depth research would throw up more. The location of a historic building which would certainly have been notable if still standing, and on the basis that notability is permanent, is still notable now. Waggers TALK 13:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have tried to improve the earlier monastic and manorial history a bit, with suitable references and a references section setup, which I think goes towards notability. The fact that the name "Grange" has a historical basis here and is not merely a naff planner's or developer's madeup fiction is well worth noticing and understanding, and the changing nature of the settlement in the modern context is therefore also perfectly relevant. The place is part of the important history of Nuneaton. If it's worth a section in the Victoria County History, it ought to deserve a foothold in wikipedia. But much improvement needed to this article. Eebahgum (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. I removed the unreferenced tag I had placed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goodfellows[edit]

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

Too Early to create. Fails WP:ORG MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Organizations, and India. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the two references provided indicate significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so on the face of it this article satisfies GNG, but per WP:SUSTAINED these look like "brief bursts of news coverage" relating to a new organisation. Per nom, it's too early to tell whether ongoing coverage will emerge to indicate sustained notability. Waggers TALK 14:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The provided references are (1) a start-up interview about the company's aspirations, and (b) an investment announcement, neither of which meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find just more of the same start-up coverage, which is insufficient to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nominator is correct Bruxton (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Labeled Security Protection Profile[edit]

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

Article topic does not appear notable. Last significant edit is over decade old. Topic is a subset of Common Criteria, but is not referenced by it or linked to from it. Does not appear notable within it's space. DecorumForum125 (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Please ping me if sources are found. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't know why this particular AfD has brought the SPAs in droves, but given the repetition of arguments without evidence, the sockpuppetry, and the assumptions of bad faith, I haven't much option besides setting aside the !votes of any suspected SPA. The arguments that remain constitute clear consensus in favor of deletion. The number of SPAs also makes salting justifiable here. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hollander[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Andrew Hollander is a composer and songwriter whose puffery-filled article is essentially a list of credits that are better left to IMDB. The only sources cited include a brief mention of Hollander or do not mention him at all.

Hollander has received no significant independent media attention. He was the composer for a notable film Waitress, but there is no indication that his work was notable. He has co-written or produced songs but there is no indication these songs were particularly notable, even if the songs' albums or performers might have had some press. All told, I don't believe anything in the article satisfies WP:ENT ("significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions").

In the past, there has been concern about conflicts of interest in edits to this article, since they were often by single-purpose or promotional accounts. One of the editors created the page of Hollander's wife Dana Parish, which I am also recommending be deleted. A recent dubious editor is AmySEOPro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Another single purpose account Magic4950 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) made numerous edits and inappropriately marked many of them as minor. There were also concerns about copyright violations. There does not seem to be much interest in this article by authentic editors. Given the above, I propose deletion of this article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Film, Music, Entertainment, and New York. ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This looks more like targeted harassment of Hollander and Parish, rather than a legitimate reason to delete this page. DubiousPuffery (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC) — DubiousPuffery (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- There are no sources for either of them that we can use, simply having their name in a list of people on an album doesn't help. He'd need a feature piece in TIME magazine for example; he's a long way from that. We aren't harassing them, we need to prove notable coverage or we can't keep the articles. Oaktree b (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are many sources sited for both Andrew Hollander and Dana Parish. Again, this clearly reads as a personal attack. There is no other reasonable explanation for someone suggesting deletion for someone and their spouse at the same time with no legitimate reason for either. magic4950 (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, All of the information on Andrew Hollander's page is accurate and current. I fail to see the issue. Andrew's page follows the same format as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lissauer. AmySEOPro (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC) — AmySEOPro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- It most certainly is, the issue is that there isn't enough coverage to warrant an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything on this page is well referenced and documented. Andrew Hollander has worked on many well known and high profile projects, including writing songs for Celine Dion and Carly Rae Jepsen, and working with the Chainsmokers. The suggestion for deletion is clearly a personal attack based on the language uses and has no basis. Andrew Hollander's page is perfectly legitimate and should remain on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic4950 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC) — Magic4950 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- There is no personal attack, we can't find substantial coverage in reliable sources. Not everyone gets a wikipedia article just for working with famous people. They have to have been covered in a non-trivial way in reliable, neutral, sources of some substance. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found. His name pops up in New York Magazine in 1976, but that's not him. Non-notable, lack of any sort of substantial coverage of the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independant coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Passing mentions aren't enough. Working with notable people isn't enough as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Am not convinced meets WP:COMPOSER, but happy to be proved wrong if sufficient sourcing is found. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking own !vote as lots of new sources have been mentioned I've not had chance to look at. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page > More coverage below of his work, which is significant and meets the standards provided by Wiki. Also, please note that the nature of a film composer, songwriter, and record producer is to collaborate with recording artists, directors, etc. This is why he is often mentioned alongside those types of artists.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/waitress-success-bittersweet-composer-139996/

https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/celine-dion-shows-edge-and-tries-out-new-characters-on-loved-me-5770656/

https://www.youredm.com/2020/08/25/words-on-bathroom-walls-soundtrack/

https://nysmusic.com/2021/08/18/steve-conte-to-release-new-album-bronx-cheer-new-track-out-now/

https://americansongwriter.com/bringin-it-backwards-interview-with-rozzi/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/moonlight-film-review-93115/

https://filmmusicreporter.com/tag/andrew-hollander/ magic4950 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - The Hollywood Reporter pieces only mention him in passing, they aren't about him. We need substantial coverage about the gentleman, not scattered mentions. The Billboard article is about Celine Dion and only mentions him in passing/in relation to her. The other sources are about the same quality. Still not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, someone who works as Hollander does as a film composer, songwriter, and record producer, will almost always be mentioned along with their collaborators. This is standard across the board for those in his line of work. This is hardly a reason for page deletion. magic4950 (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - And that's why he isn't notable for wikipeia. It's precisely why it's being deleted. He must have enough coverage about him specifically. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely baffled as to why anyone would propose removing this profile. I fell in love with Andrew's work after I saw his film Waitress and have thoroughly enjoyed his films. Why is an award winning film and music composer being attacked? I hope someone at Wikipedia investigates as this just doesn't seem right. Laurarae1966 (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)— Laurarae1966 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The AmySEO user has been blocked for undisclosed COI, and the others you mention have also been warned over the last 4 yrs or so about such COI editing. I'd proceed with caution. Oaktree b (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have verified multiple references and citations and am convinced notability is met and this appears frankly to be a personal attack. For both Hollander and his wife.
- https://variety.com/2009/film/markets-festivals/composing-a-collaborative-process-1118007651/ Crazy4science (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)— Crazy4science (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Notable or not is a separate issue but this looks like an attack, I verified some news and events which are on Dana Parish's deletion discussion page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dana_Parish AppleBoosted (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC) — AppleBoosted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- No it's not, we're also discussing the deletion there. Same as here, we need reliable sources with enough to meet GNG or we can't keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - More reliable sources added, BMI and Variety. In my opinion the existing sources are enough to determine notability as per Wikipedia's statement on general notability guidelines. AppleBoosted (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are three sources with coverage about Hollander specifically.

https://www.bmi.com/news/entry/andrew-hollander-talks-composing-for-words-on-bathroom-walls-with-the-chain https://www.bmi.com/news/entry/bmi_songwriter_andrew_hollander_contributes_to_celine_dions_highly_anticipa https://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=74371 DubiousPuffery (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- All of those articles are from BMI. Andrew Hollander has a financial relationship with BMI. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hollander was described by the Hollywood Reporter as a "top screen composer" on the "cusp of A-list status." https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/how-9-top-screen-composers-147788/ in 2007, his score for 'Waitress' was called "amazing" by the president of music at 20th Century Fox, Robert Kraft in the L.A. Times the same year, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-aug-08-et-oscar8-story.html and in 2020, made the Film Music Institute's list of Best Scores of 2020. https://filmmusicinstitute.com/the-best-scores-of-2020/ ```` DubiousPuffery (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hollander was also profiled alongside his contemporaries Hans Zimmer and Michael Giacchino in Variety magazine. https://variety.com/2009/film/markets-festivals/composing-a-collaborative-process-1118007651/ DubiousPuffery (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it's almost too soon for him, based on the analysis of sources. Could perhaps draftify? Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - And since then (2007) he's been profiled next to a-listers Zimmer and Giacchino, because he's considered on par with them career-wise. Here's one more interview profiling Hollander specifically - demonstrating again that he's quite well known in his field. https://soundtracksscoresandmore.com/2018/04/26/my-friend-dahmer-soundtrack-andrew-hollander-interview/ He's also notable enough to be listed next to Mike Birbiglia, Eartha Kitt and Ira Glass on A-Z Quotes, https://www.azquotes.com/author/79514-Andrew_Hollander and to have 111 photos, most at red carpet events, when you search Getty Images. The only issue with this article is that it hasn't been updated in a while. DubiousPuffery (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interviews aren't used for sourcing as they're primary. Please review the RS and GNG as explained above. Oaktree b (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - And Getty Images is only photos, not a useful source, other than perhaps confirming where he was on the day the photo was taken. AZ Quotes ins't even listed in our list of reliable sources, so we'll ignore it. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Andrew Hollander belongs on Wikipedia. Some of his work is found here: Broken Ones- This song was featured on, The Voice, Jacquie Lee’s first single > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQazvw5E77A

This song won a Chinese Grammy! “Someday I’ll fly” G.E.M. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peXpXFYhhyY Here's another G.E.M. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ0vRcpsfCM Minecraft Dungeon Lord (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)— Minecraft Dungeon Lord (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Youtube isn't a valid source either. Let it WP:SNOW apparently. No quality sources found, even less with each passing day. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep > As many have pointed out, this is clearly a personal attack and the article absolutely meets Wikipedia's requirements. Even the tone of the comments from Oaktree and Science Flyer are personal and emotional in nature. magic4950 (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No quality sources found? The L.A. Times, Variety and the Hollywood Reporter how are these not quality sources to establish notoriety? DubiousPuffery (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Quality sources yes, substantial coverage, not quite. Little bits of info that don't help with GNG, as discussed. I'm not attacking anyone, the sources presented aren't useful for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a BIO but without any supporting sources for the biographical information. Of the cites in the article, many don't mention him at all and the rest are name-checks. Of the links given above in this discussion, only one has any substance about him ([6]). He does get name credit for composing and for producing, but not the content that would support the article. If the un-referenced material (and sources that don't mention him) were removed there would definitely not be enough left for an article. TOO SOON? Lamona (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is to inform that the nominator Science Flyer is vandalizing page and associating BMI to Hollander by saying Andrew Hollander has a financial relationship with BMI which has proved his nonsense and personal agenda, he is only interested in removing the pages of both husband and wife. The page should be locked. AppleBoosted (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding to AppleBoosted's vandalism info - ScienceFlyer also removed recent edits citing credible sources that support notoriety, suppressing relevant information counter to their request for article deletion. ScienceFlyer made an unfounded statement about the president of 20th Century Fox having a "conflict of interest" to justify the removal of these citations. DubiousPuffery (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment A reminder that for AfD when considering notability the current state of the article matters less than what sources WP:NEXIST. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a few mentions in the press but nothing really useful for biographical purposes. Might be WP:TOOSOON. Madeline (part of me) 12:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after seeing additions on the page and verifying references I guess the notability is met. 2603:8001:9300:9656:7C7E:ED5:68D0:F92C (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete classic example of what happens when someone creates a Wikipedia entry for the wrong reasons. If there were enough independent coverage for a 100-word article, then the inclusionist in me would be arguing to keep this. But when yes-people synthesise content from film credits and name checks without any in-depth sources, then the page is a sitting duck for trolls. Worse, it creates the impression that our methodology is flexible or optional when, in reality, our epistemic standards are what holds Wikipedia together. Enough is enough. Let it WP:SNOW 2A00:23C7:829E:7E01:5CF0:BE78:A7F7:F872 (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:829E:7E01:5CF0:BE78:A7F7:F872 (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Insisting that there isn't enough significant coverage for notability is strange given all the examples submitted at this point in the AfD discussion - it seems to be a technique to get people not to actually bother to read the sources and pretend Hollander is either not mentioned/only mentioned in passing. DubiousPuffery (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We have analyzed them, they aren't terribly useful, as explained. There isn't much left to find. No one is attacking him here, you being the only one that keeps saying it's happening. I don't know the fellow and don't particularly care who he is or what he does. We're reviewing the quality of the sources used to see if they warrant having an article in Wikipedia. We've yet to see any that can help support keeping it. Oaktree b (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Others besides me have pointed out the same. If you aren't familiar with the controversy surrounding the topic of Hollander's spouse's book, then you can be forgiven for not understanding that this nominator is clearly someone who is involved in that ugliness, and Hollander has been caught in the middle. I disagree that the articles linked have not supported notoriety. The Variety article combined with the Hollywood Reporter and L.A. Times constitute substantial coverage, and not just a glancing mention. DubiousPuffery (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - ok, show me three in-depth features in one of the sources listed at wp:RSP and I will change my vote to keep.2A00:23C7:829E:7E01:5CF0:BE78:A7F7:F872 (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yikes, this discussion is a mess with all the single-purpose (and potential sockpuppet) accounts. However, after reviewing the sources listed and doing a search on my own, I'm afraid there just isn't enough coverage for Andrew Hollander (which is a shame considering his fairly notable work). I did find it somewhat ironic that his bio on his website has a disclaimer stating that it was copied from Wikipedia. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:COMPOSER criteria #4 which states “Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers”. Hollander was the composer of Emmy award winning TV show on HBO’s A Child's Garden Of Poetry which make him pass this criterion. In addition to this, his notable work is quite well covered in The Hollywood Reporter and Variety news website. Huberfna (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide sources for the win, that's part of the issue here, that we can't find sources to support notability. It would go a long way to supporting "keeping" the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:ScienceFlyer who has nominated this article for deletion and has made multiple bold edits without consensus, appears to have a COI with the subject of this article and his spouse, Dana_Parish, whose article he has also nominated for deletion. This pattern of marking the articles of a couple for deletion and then editing heavily to try to enforce this suggests a personal vendetta of some kind. Tartletvertex (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG as he had been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, also added four more sources. well-referenced. Don't agree with nom and seems like targeted attack. Losovefa (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Based on the additional sources combined, there's probably enough to just about meet WP:GNG (I'm less familar with WP:COMPOSER, but that should be considered), however I am concerned about the number of seemingly single-purpose accounts involved and wonder if there has been some WP:CANVASSING going on off-wiki somewhere. This is certainly not a case for WP:SNOW as two editors mentioned. I also find the amount of talk of personal attacks concerning. This is the place to focus on sources, not individuals. Other forums are more appropriate for issues about individual editors. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- comment off-wiki canvassing? Really? I would never have guessed from reading all these erudite contributions from experienced editors. Everything looks perfectly aboveboard.2A00:23C7:829E:7E01:5417:CE43:F838:EC47 (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - :-P -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I've semi protected this AfD as it seems to be the target of some sort of meatpuppetry campaign. firefly ( t · c ) 21:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Protect I bet that, the exact moment this article is finally deleted, its going to be recreated. Other than that, i believe that there is no particular reason to keep this one. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Before counting or analysis the keep and delete vote please do check on the talk page of Handmeanotherbagofthemchips and it seems like a targeted attack. Losovefa (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a source assessment table I developed based on sources in the article and this discussion:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
‘Waitress’ success bittersweet for composer (AP/Hollywood Reporter, 2007)	There is some independent content about Hollander's career and upcoming projects in addition to a quote from Hollander in the 6 grafs.		~ Not particularly in-depth coverage	~ Partial
Celine Dion Shows Edge, and Tries Out New Characters, on ‘Loved Me Back to Life’ (Billboard, 2013)	In this source primarily about Celine Dion, the artists talk about themselves.		The five short grafs related to the one song co-written by Hollander are primarily quotes. e.g. from hollander, Dana Parish, Dion, and Parish and Hollander's friend Peter Lloyd, then of Razor & Tie Music Publishing.	✘ No
Bringin’ it Backwards: Interview with Rozzi (American Songwriter, 2021?)			This is the only mention in the announcement of the album: "Mostly recorded in London and New York with a handful of stellar producers, including: George Moore (YEBBA, Clean Bandit), Andrew Hollander (Carly Rae Jespen, Coyle Girelli), Pretty Sister (Betty Who, Jordin Sparks), Michael Dragovic, Eric Leva and Jurek (Matoma, NCT Dream, Blackbear)..."	✘ No
a collaborative process (Variety, 2009)			~ The 5 grafs focused on Hollander are based on an interview with Hollander and someone he worked with.	~ Partial
Listen To The Chainsmokers’ First Score On A Feature Film, “Words on Bathroom Walls”	recycled press release	website TOS	names Hollander without secondary context or commentary	✘ No
BMI Songwriter Andrew Hollander Contributes to Celine Dion’s Highly Anticipated New Album (BMI, 2013)	Hollander is a BMI songwriter		~ mostly quotes from Hollander	✘ No
Steve Conte To Release New Album ‘Bronx Cheer’, New Track Out Now (NYSMusic.com, 2021)	? This looks like a recycled press release	? other content on the site looks like recycled press releases	only mention: "Conte produced the album with Andrew Hollander, who has worked with big names in indie and pop."	✘ No
Serious Moonlight — Film Review (AP/Hollywood Reporter, 2009)			only mention is the credits section; "Music: Andrew Hollander"	✘ No
Academy halts mailings of CDs (LA Times, 2007)			There is a quote from Robert Kraft, president of music at 20th Century Fox about Hollander's score for Waitress. According to the LAT, Kraft "noted that Fox Searchlight has two small films, “Once” and “Waitress”". This is not independent commentary about Hollander, it is WP:PROMO.	✘ No
‘Pig,’ ‘Val,’ ‘Adrienne’ and Other 2021 Streaming Gems (NYT, 2021)			Does not mention Hollander	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Based on available sources, I !vote delete due to what seems to be insufficient independent and reliable support for WP:BASIC or other notability. Based on the apparent meatpuppetry campaign that includes comments suggesting promotional content and sources support notability, I also recommend salting this article. Beccaynr (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sudeep Acharya[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate that either WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE are met. They received an award in 2017, but it doesn't seem to be very prestigious and the coverage about it is extremely limited - just confirming the award and nothing else. SmartSE (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. I look at this many times when I reviewed and it seems to just be the award which I though was minor. There is no coverage. scope_creep^Talk 21:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom Lethweimaster (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV. ~ Yeti Dai (talk)
Delete: Not notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepalwikiwditorr (talk • contribs) 06:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Evans[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Cannot find any significant coverage, nor any reviews. Edwardx (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Next to no sources, BEFORE confirms this is not a hoax (such as author exists and has penned some of the works that our article attributes to him) but that's it. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NBIO, WP:GNG... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gunn (author)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Can find almost nothing about him, and no reviews of any of his books. 9 pageviews (30 days) for a BLP is rather low. Edwardx (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Photography, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the only source currently cited in this article is a PR Web press release, which fails the independence and reliability test, and the rest of the article lacks citations. One of the most in-depth articles about him which I found is this 2012 blog interview, which doesn't count toward notability per WP:RS. He is mentioned only briefly in this book called The Classic Car Adventure. There actually do appear to be brief blurbs about his books which could be considered "reviews" in publications such as Sydney Daily Telegraph and Teen Ink magazine, but the first example lacks depth and the second doesn't seem authoritative, and in any case neither really makes the case that the author's contributions make him notable in the industry. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The challenge is that the subject does not meet GNG. The 'keep' arguments do not sufficiently counter that. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Rojas (footballer, born 1993)[edit]

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

Another (former?) player who seemingly fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable independent sources covering the subject in detail. All I could find was just a handful of passing references about him, mostly covering his stats or just a couple of his transfers without digging into any further detail [7] and his footballing career is apparently limited to seven professional games in the minor leagues. Angelo (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable, Plays or has played for Paraguayan a top level league team.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring sources to your claims. According to those very few sources I could find, he has never played in the Paraguayan top flight, just two minor teams. Plus, WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG are not based on the footballer's league of playing. --Angelo (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's currently a player for s Paraguayan top flight team, however has sat on the bench for the entire matches he was part of so far. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which team? Could you please provide sources to support your claims? The most recent news regarding this player are dated 2019, zero appearances for a minor league Paraguayan team: [8] --Angelo (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source that is referenced in the article shows that he appeared in 2 matches of Deportivo Capiatá as a benchwarmer. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Angelo.romano:, this shows he made 5 appearances in the fully pro Paraguay top flight as well as an appearance in the Italian Serie B which is regarded as one of the best second tiers in the world. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, having played in a fully professional league of any kind does not establish notability per se. --Angelo (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass our notability guidelines. Bruxton (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @PiccklePiclePikel:. I found sources like [9] and many many other sources. He has an ongoing extensive professional career. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it is ongoing is simply wrong. He has apparently retired, since he has disappeared from the public eye since 2019. Extensive I wouldn't say either - seven first team appearances in five years... --Angelo (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about footballer who had a brief professional career and wasn't the subject of SIGCOV. I can only find (and the ones posted above are) trivial mentions online. Fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Arzamendia[edit]

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

Another (former?) player who clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable independent sources covering the subject in detail. All I could find was just a handful of passing references about him [10] and his footballing career is apparently limited to one season in the Italian fourth division. Angelo (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Keep~~ - Notable, has played for a top level league Italian club.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth division is not the top level and WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG are not based on the level that a player has played at. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He plays for Hellas Verona F.C. which is in the league named Serie A and that is the top level league in Italy. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was contracted for Verona (which was in Serie B at the time), but never played a single game with them. --Angelo (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, changing to delete.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delte No evidence of notablity Dawid2009 (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Lightburst (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonders Never Cease[edit]

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

Article about a sponsored film (i.e. long advertisement for a commercial product), not reliably sourced as having any serious claim to passing WP:NFO. The only notability claim on offer here is that it exists, and the only "sourcing" present is a directory entry on the British Film Institute website, but just using a directory entry to verify that a film exists isn't enough in the absence of other coverage.
As I don't have access to any databases in which I could retrieve 70-year-old media coverage from the United Kingdom, I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if somebody with access to such resources can locate a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from needing improvement. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked a number of databases and couldn't find more than just a passing mention or two. I suppose it's possible that I'm missing something (and I too would be glad to reconsider if better sourcing can be found), but as best I can tell there's none of the significant coverage in independent reliable sources needed to pass the GNG, nor do any of the WP:NFILM criteria appear to be met. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Landslides vs. Rock strength[edit]

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

Large content fork of Landslide classification, already a spurious subarticle. Serious WP:N issues, poorly written, very little relevant information to merge. Propose Deletion. Epsilon.Prota (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 12:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Grand[edit]

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

Non-notable football coach. Non titles, no in-depth media coverage. Fails GNG. BlameRuiner (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plays in top level league.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That does not necessarily mean that he has WP:SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has significant coverage on Indonesian news sites as would be expected.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 20:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again.... simply google "Rory Grand" Semarang and you will see lots of Indonesian news sites. No articles in the New York Times or BBC does not mean no articles exist on other places, and potentially other languages. We're lucky that Bahasa Indonesia uses the Latin Alphabet. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: clearly passes GNG with sources such as [11], [12], [13]. Pinging GiantSnowman per request. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above by Nehme which show notability.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per everything above. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 03:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The School (Norwegian band)[edit]

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

fails notability guidelines for bands. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 13:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Norway. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 13:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From 2006 to their break-up in 2010, they were a popular band in their part of Norway. They were highly successful in live performances and got a lot of press for it and for their first album, which was nominated for the "Norwegian Grammies", Spellemannprisen. The album name, Espionage, complicates search but extended coverage that I found and have used to expand and update the article includes this and this from 2006, this and this from 2008, and this from 2016, a retrospective on the occasion of their reunion concert (with many links to coverage of each stage of the band's career, unfortunately short-form links but I'll be searching for some of them to add). Those are on 4 different sites, including 2 major newspapers. Extended coverage in reliable sources over several years, meets GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oh wow! that's an incredible improvement! nomination withdrawn! lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 03:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject has received a notable award, so passes WP:ANYBIO. Thank you to users who brought this to my attention. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 13:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 13:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catrin Thomas[edit]

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

Non-notable ski mountaineer. Before search doesn't bring up any third party sources to establish notability. No medal record. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSBASIC. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 12:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable as recipient of the Polar Medal. The sources that back this up in the article are good enough.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PiccklePiclePikel, This is useful information, I appreciate your bringing it to my attention! I'm not 100% sure that this fact alone establishes enough notability to pass WP:GNG, but, if in a day or so no other Delete !votes are cast, I'll withdraw this AfD. Thanks again for noting this! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 13:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that GNG is not the only way to pass notability. In this case, it would be WP:ANYBIO #1. St Anselm (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political midlife crisis[edit]

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

This is just a vague general term. It's not a notable concept or phenomenon in academia or otherwise. The article is primarily composed of WP:OR that does not use the term, as well as a few cases where individuals have used the general term in random and inconsistent ways. Thenightaway (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does the book Muqaddimah not refer to the concept?--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no mention of it in my PDF of the book ("mid life", "mid-life" and "midlife" come up blank) and I see no mention of it on the very large Wikipedia page for the book. Even if the term were to be mentioned in a book, that does not mean it's notable. Thenightaway (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The citation references page p. 285 specifically. Do you have the PDF of the 1978 Routledge publication?--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete The GBook hits are particularly telling: after the Johnson book there is nothing listed with an actual passage, indicating that it's not finding any use of the term. Regular Ghits are not much better. This seems to be a vague and unimaginative figure of speech which someone could throw at any sort of crisis tha tlooks like some sort of a turning point. Mangoe (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a notdict and GNG fail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buidhe (talk • contribs) 22:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There are related discussions about the article "State collapse" (which is proposed to be merged with Failed State:[14]) and "Political stagnation"(which is proposed for deletion here:[15]), which appear to have been created by the same editor. Thenightaway (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luksimi Sivaneswaralingam[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Canada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable entertainer Andre🚐 05:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of media coverage - see the references in the Tamil Wikipedia ta:Luksimi Sivaneswaralingam. Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources cited on the Tamil Wikipedia are pretty clearly routine churnalism from sources of questionable reliability, the most reliable source being the article in The Hindu, which is essentially just a glorified interview. I am not seeing any coverage that would contribute to GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable singer. Hargovindkhurana (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if we can get a clear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per her winning a (major) SIIMA award.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masoud Minaei[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Subject does not meet WP:NKICK and WP:GNG. He Has not won any notable championships and Was nominated before in 2017 with clear consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masoud Minaei. I'm unsure how the page resurfaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lethweimaster (talk • contribs) 08:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Iran. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment Article was already deleted and recreated see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masoud Minaei. Does not met notability criteria WP:NKICK.
Delete Fails to meet WP:NKICK. None of the titles he's competed for would have even met the old WP:NKICK criteria. Passing mentions and event results are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jafar Ahmadi[edit]

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and lacks WP:SIGCOV Lethweimaster (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2022 (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 11:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Gold medallist at world championships is notable.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how many World Championships there is in the world? No, a "Gold medal" does not meet wikipedia criteria of notability for WP:ATHLETE. Subject did not win any notable championships, fails WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of his kickboxing championships would have shown WP notability under the old WP:NKICK criteria and I found nothing to show he meets the current WP:NKICK (which is even more restrictive). The coverage of results and passing mentions fails to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

María Montenegro[edit]

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

Fails GNG 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Panama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana García[edit]

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

Fails GNG 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Panama. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Lightburst (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Pon[edit]

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

Fails GNG 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Panama, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, as there isn't enough coverage about this young player. (There is a feature article about her in her high school newspaper following her selection for the Panama squad in 2021; it contains a few factual paragraphs in addition to quotes from the subject herself, but school papers generally don't count toward notability anyway.) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Lightburst (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nedelka Catuy[edit]

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

Fails GNG 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Panama. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lineth Cedeño[edit]

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

Fails GNG 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Panama. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 20:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], and [22], [23], among many many other sources from tvn-2.com, elsiglo.com.pa, YouTube, telemetro.com, panamaamerica.com.pa, laestrella.com.pa, prensa.com, etc. She is clearly significant figure in Panamanian football with a young ongoing nearer , plays in Italian Serie A which is regarded as one of worlds best leagues, and pronbabnly one of best ever Panamanian players ever and one of ew to ever play in Europe. and I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by Das osmnezz which show notability.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Church (author)[edit]

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

Wrote two books about the town in Nottingham, England where she came from. Can find no reviews. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, History, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this page way back when I was a newbie. Agree with the nominators rationale, probably fails WP:AUTHOR. I really should've put this up for CSD G7 before now, but I forgot about it... Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 11:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete lack of WP:SIGCOV, and no coverage such as reviews to meet WP:NAUTHOR. The only mentions I found for the name were for the other Judith Church. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree that the subject does not have the sort of notability that would be expected for her to have a Wikipedia page and neither of her publications seems to have gathered a significant level of coverage. Dunarc (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Two low level local histories of a suburb of Nottingham do not make her notable. No doubt a worthy lady, but NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uche Nancy[edit]

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

Unremarkable costume designer who appears to have won a single award back in 2016 but without sufficient WP:SIGCOV to accompany it or even since then. Deletion has been disputed on the talk page but no significantly reliable secondary sources have been offered to support notability. No indication this person has done enough yet or been reported significantly to justify having an article, besides in blogs and social media platforms. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Nigeria. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete Some coverage, but not sure how reliable it is (e.g. [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]), but not convinced it's enough to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking own !vote, bit on the fence still. Also found https://www.sunnewsonline.com/my-growing-up-wasnt-pleasant-sonia-uche-actress/ (in interview, so not exactly independant), which in turn got some very minor coverage (e.g. https://www.ghgossip.com/im-a-child-of-divorce-actress-sonia-uche-opens-up/) Not convinced meets WP:NACTOR either. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sticking with my original !vote, but not sure. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete still not sure the person is notable, even with the sources given. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : As a Nigerian with lot of knowledge about the Nigerian entertainment industry, the lady “Uche Nancy” looks familiar famous but lacks WP:GNG. --Gabriel^t@lk 12:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Njoroge[edit]

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

Non-notable football coach who fails GNG. No in-depth media coverage. BlameRuiner (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Kenya. Justi yaya 10:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coach of Kenyan top level league teams.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there is significant coverage to show notability. Giant Snowman 17:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is adequate coverage to show notability.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per everything above. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Lightburst (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hooked Up Records[edit]

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

Topic fails WP:NMUSIC as it is quite clearly not one of the more important indie record labels given that it was short-lived and had zero notable releases. As a for-profit company, topic also fails WP:NCORP with zero sources meeting WP:CORPDEPTH requirements. The WA Woman source is a passing mention.

Google News had zero hits. Google Books had no relevant hits. ProQuest hits are also irrelevant. Newspaper Archive (1995 - 2015) search yields no relevant hits either.

No worthwhile content worth merging into College Fall or Anna Laverty. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, England, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it's not true that the label had zero notable releases (the College Fall one passes muster), it's the only full-length album the label ever released, and according to Discogs, the label only ever put out 8 releases, half of which were CD-R singles. That's not going to make it past WP:MUSIC's sense of an important indie label (the CORPDEPTH discussion is beside the point, as the label wouldn't need to be held to that standard to be worth keeping, but that's ultimately orthogonal when the label has such a clear lack of relevance). Chubbles (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Montgomery-Swan[edit]

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

BLP without any working references. Rathfelder (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sportspeople, and England. Rathfelder (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: before search returned no reliable sources for me Justi yaya 15:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the governments in Iran and their reciprocal presidents in the United States[edit]

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

I feel this is a violation of WP:TRIVIA and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 08:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran and United States of America. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 08:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Lists of people. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure indiscriminate listcruft. Dronebogus (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a list for the sake of having a list, completely indiscriminate and fails WP:LISTN as has not been discussed at length as a topic, even though the list is verifiable. I'm shocked that this survived NPP to be honest. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. I think there is some useful information here that maybe could be merged to another article. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Useful how? Dronebogus (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Dronebogus. @Fad Ariff: what exactly could be merged and to where? You haven't provided enough information for other people to know what you are talking about. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 08:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the timeline of governments in Iran provides a tidy representation of information. I thought that could be merged to a relevant article about the different governments in Iran, or maybe be left as a stand-alone article. This could be useful for anyone looking for quick information about the timeline of the different governments in Iran. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is kind of interesting but fails wikipedia guidelines. Nweil (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I considered adding this to the Bilateral relations delsort, but this is not even significant for Iran–United States relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaundryPizza03 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is WP:SYNTH, IMO. Jacona (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR analysis at best. What is of note in sources about various administrations in the US and Iran over time is for the Iran–United States relations article. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Temporary Autonomous Zone. Bots will correct any duplicate redirects that exist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent autonomous zone[edit]

Last "Article" version of article → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Permanent_autonomous_zone&oldid=1105686758

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

The page was an article that lack source, describing autonomous regions. Someone in the talk page mentioned there are lack of source to prove the classification of "permanent" autonomous zone actually existing, and then an editor decided it should be redirected to "Temporary Autonomus Zone" instead. which is an article about a book which theme is anarchism. I was taken by surprise that I got lead to that redirect target when I click into this from the article/list of autonomus region in Myanmar, however the editor insist it must be turned into a redirect instead. Hence I want to have a discussion of what to do with both the original article and the updated redirect. C933103 (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. C933103 (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment To discuss this as an article for deletion it would make sense to revert to the last version which was an article, so we can see what we're talking about. I have to say that the current redirect doesn't make sense. Mangoe (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
response I've added a link near the top to the last "article" version. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move, to Autonomous zone. Per the talk page none of the sources in the previous article define autonomous zones as temporary or permenant. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think such move would make sense. C933103 (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. We have no content that would go there that wouldn't fit into the existing article on autonomous zones (the current target of this redirect). czar 16:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do you fit Kowloon Walled City into the target? C933103 (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Temporary Autonomous Zone. It's unclear exactly what you're looking to get from this discussion, but while we're here, might as well take the best course of action. What is this Myanmar link you speak of? Because "autonomous area" and "autonomous zone" typically mean different things—the former is an administrative division (such as Autonomous regions of China) while the latter is a reference to the concept developed in the book Temporary Autonomous Zone. It's possible that some page has confused the two, but we can't address it unless you link it. This is why it's generally better to discuss on the talk page before going to AfD.

In this case, this Permanent autonomous zone was some kind of original research version of or play on temporary autonomous zone. Checking the sources, none use the phrase "permanent autonomous zone". For the autonomous zone concept, Temporary Autonomous Zone already exists. For the list items, most if not all are covered within the existing List of anarchist communities. I'd be open to deletion since "permanent autonomous zone" is an unsourced neologism, but redirects are cheap and if even one person is looking for background on autonomous zones, this redirect is fine. czar 11:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about link from Self-administered_zone C933103 (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying C933103; now fixed. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. The author has inferred a definition and found examples of autonomous zones that fall under that definition. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Temporary Autonomous Zone. The phrase is used in the book: the preface to the second edition (p. xii) asks "if we're dreaming, why not dream big? A whole country or bioregion transformed into a Permanent Autonomous Zone?" It's also used elsewhere in Wilson's work, for example Spiritual Journeys of an Anarchist p. 124, 131 and 144; and occasionally in scholarly work on anarchism (e.g. Sandra Jeppesen in Anarchism: A Conceptual Approach p. 216 and Jeff Shantz in Anarchist Pedagogies p. 125). This is certainly sufficient to substantiate the brief mention currently in that article and to make a redirect worthwhile. I can't find any Myanmar-related articles that link to this page, but if the nominator arrived at this page from a confusing link, that can presumably be easily resolved by fixing the link in question. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Permanent Autonomous Zone, Permanent Autonomous Zones and Permanent autonomous zones also exist as redirects to the same target. If this page is deleted they should be too, if this page is restored to an article then they should be retargetted to point to it, if it is redirected elsewhere they should be changed to point to the same target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Temporary Autonomous Zone, per Arms & Hearts. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Temporary Autonomous Zone; my first reaction was delete entirely, but given that Arms & Hearts shows that some sources do use the term, I think redirect is the most appropriate. IohannesChicaginiensis (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Temporary Autonomous Zone, per Arms & Hearts. Enough reliable sourcing to warrant a redirect, not enough to establish notability. Sal2100 (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Renato Martin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veneto Padanian Federal Republic[edit]

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

Small party based mainly in Jesolo, a city of 26,000 inhabitants, and which has never even participated in the local elections of this city. The page tells almost exclusively of Renato Martin and practically never of the party. The party, which is sporadically cited in some sources in relation to its leader Renato Martin, does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A municipal party can be encyclopedic, moreover VRFP was not active only in Jesolo. This said, if there is no consensus on keeping the article, I suggest to merge it with Renato Martin, in order to preserve the article's history, or have a joint article with Party for Independent Veneto. --Checco (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A municipal party may have its own relevance, but not this one, which has never participated in an election. Same reasoning for Party for Independent Veneto. I agree to merge it with Renato Martin.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Renato Martin as per above. Yakme (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not even Renato Martin is among the most relevant politicians, however he was a discussed figure for his ties to Jörg Haider. The parties he founded, however, are really unknown, a merge/redirect would really be more than enough.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbo Jumbo (YouTuber)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Number of youtube subscribers does not correlate to notability. Despite some blogs, there is no indication that he has been significantly covered in reliable sources. No indication from provided sources or searches that this individual is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant an article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Internet. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Andre🚐 07:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, search results are absolutely infested by those procedurally generated sites that list popular YouTubers in order to make ad revenue off small children, but the only semi-decent source I was able to find was this interview in GamesRadar+, which even if it were not a primary source would not be enough to showcase a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t delete. His influence to the community is seen, and doesn’t need to be reported. All his redstone creations on Minecraft earned him his popularity, therefore the paged shouldn’t be deleted. Windsor Yeh (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "influence to the community" is meaningless and feels more like an emotional statement than one of fact (and of course, to assert notability, it clearly does need to be reported or published in secondary reliable sources). Likewise, "popularity" is highly subjective and wikipedia does not recognise how "popular" a youtuber is (whether it be by subscribers or views). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally invalid argument for deletion. Earning popularity with a cohort of people does not negate the requirement for proof of notability. WP:ILIKEIT is an argument to avoid. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - popularity !== notability, as mentioned above. There does not appear to be any in-depth coverage about this person, as required to meet our notability criteria. firefly ( t · c ) 10:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have deleted the pages of far more popular and accomplished social media contributors for less. As there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources, notability standards are not met and the article should be deleted. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the WP:GNG, it's been discussed in the past that websites like "Sportskeeda", which this article is written around, does not meet Wikipedia's standard for being a reliable source either. Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO - "popular" but not notable. KylieTastic (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, no reliable sources and few if any that don't look like fluff/SEO stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G11. ––FormalDude talk 04:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage is mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and does not pass WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stop Bullshit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Margot (activist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The individual received some media coverage for her role in a single event in 2020. As article states - ..mostly known for being arrested and accused by the police for slashing the tires of a truck. Since then, no media coverage can be found. The article fails criteria for a standalone article per WP:BIO. I'll also note that the article about the person has been deleted form Wikipiedia of her native country (Poland) for the same reason. Refer to recent talk page discussion Notablity section - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's an obvious merge target here - Stop Bullshit. The Polish version ([30]) even has a photo of her in it. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite - Yes, the article could be merged to Stop Bullshit, that’s an option. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Stop Bullshit since the only (and limited) notability of the person is related to this topic. Michalis Vazaios (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't perceive notability or recognisibility of this character. She\ he's known only for one particular act of vanadalism and being detected and arrested, now nobody remembers him/her in Poland The Wolak (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an interview with the BBC would seem to establish notability pretty well, even if things have gone quiet since then (I don't know if that's true, but supposing it is...). Malick78 (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One interview (2 years ago) with BBC doesn't establish notability. (I don’t think this argument even needs responce, but whatever 🤷‍♀️) - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody can be interviewed by some famous medias, but giving interview with someone, even by the most recognisable media isn't a factor making that person autoencyclopedism IMO The Wolak (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per the above and WP:BLP1E. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I lean towards WP:ONEVENT-justified lack of stand-alone notability. Their story is relevant to Stop Bullshit, and a redirect and merge of referenced content is a good idea. The Polish discussion at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2022:08:08:Margot (aktywistka) sadly ended with delete, not merge and redirect. Let's be more WP:PRESERVEish here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Stop Bullshit, per the above. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Stop Bullshit/Stop Bzdurom. Interview with Margot is not independet source. In that case BBC maybe worthy source to be mentioned elsewhere but one interview two years ago is not enough to defend notablity of the subject in separate article. I would also redirect Stop Bullshit into original name Stop Bzdurom because of the latter gets slightly better results in google scholar (though both do not have great results as almost all are from 2022 and by Polish authors or in Polish language). Dawid2009 (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patach Eliyahu[edit]

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

This religious subject has no real evidence of substantial reliable coverage - a search under the current title reveals just a single scholarly mention in a book on Chasidism, and the only web links are to chabad.org, a religious website and unreliable source - scant evidence of notability indeed. The current lack of inline citation and sourcing in the article online affirms that quotable sources establishing notability are hard to come by. That there is not even a Jewish Encyclopedia entry (a typically replete resource for this type of subject) is telling. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Judaism. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Most Sephardim recite Patach Eliyahu every morning as part of the order for the morning blessings before Shacharit." I have no idea if that is true, but if it is, I assume there would be some coverage about it. Possibly, the spelling is different or it's a different word. For example, it probably literally means something like "Elijah's prayer" so we probably have to look for sourcing under that term. I did a cursory search and found a few things, but not sure yet. There also might be a different translation of the Hebrew search term that would turn up more meaningful results. I agree that the Chabad website shouldn't be a reliable source, but if the statements in the article are at all true, there are probably references in the Jewish Encyclopedia or another reliable Jewish book. Andre🚐 07:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also performed a cursory search under "Elijah's prayer" but likewise didn't find anything immediately compelling. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually found the Jewish Encyclopedia to be quite limited and even profoundly unreliable when discussing various topics of Jewish ritual and law. In their article "Aliens," for example, opinions contradicting the decided law are presented without challenge, the entire topic of the Noahide laws is never mentioned once, and there are absolutely no citations to any of the Jewish legal codes, or even to the Talmud, despite the obvious context of Jewish law. They have no entry at all for the major Psalm 145 known as "Ashrei," the centerpiece of Pesukei dezimra in the daily Shacharit service. For the Shirat Hayam, which they call the "Song of Moses," its use in daily prayer is never mentioned, and their discussion deals inordinately with its style rather than its substance: "striking originality of form," "The poet was also an artist." (What?) Then, without once even touching a single rabbinical source like Shulchan Aruch, Rashi or Talmud, they present without challenge their extraordinary, grand unilateral conclusion that Moses could not have authored it - despite the article's title! I much prefer Chabad.org, which is consistently grounded in actual Jewish practice and sources, and whose editors ensure a much more accurate portrayal of topics in Jewish tradition. Musashiaharon (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Jewish Encyclopedia is a century old, so it's not the most up to date, but it references many obscure topics. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even a question of up-to-date. Patach Eliyahu's role in prayer predates the Encyclopedia Judaica by centuries. If it mentions a handful of obscure topics, that's great, but there are clearly many gaping holes. Musashiaharon (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said the Jewish Encyclopedia was authoritative for matters of Orthodox Jewish law or Talmudic interpretation of practice. And I'm sure, where inaccurate, we should not rely on it for facts that are out-of-date, I just offered it as an example of a generally reliable work of scholarship for history and facts that we might want in Wikipedia. Your critique of its description of the poet's literary style seems to presuppose that it should be responsa, which it is not. It's a historical reference work. I think the article has demonstrated notability based on what you posted, even if the cites are mostly all to religious type works. Andre🚐 17:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashrei notably has both scholarly mentions and references to both the Encyclopedia of Jewish Prayer and Jewish Liturgy: A comprehensive history - can entries for this not be found there? If there is an entire Encyclopedia of Jewish Prayer, surely that would mention this prayer? Iskandar323 (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. The somewhat grandiosely-named Encyclopedia of Jewish Prayer is only a single volume 454 pages long. Compare that with my Tehillat Hashem prayerbook without commentary or translation, which is 743 pages of much denser Hebrew. Further, that encyclopedia does not cover Arizal, Italian, Yemenite, or the chasidic Sepharad (distinguishable from Sephardi) rites. That "encyclopedia" is far from comprehensive, so I would not be surprised if it only discussed the sections in general terms. Jewish Liturgy: A comprehensive history is likewise hardly "comprehensive" at all, only 501 pages in a single volume. I would expect to find Patach Eliyahu/Petichat Eliyahu in books about Sephardi or Chabad chasidic prayer in particular, in books about Kabbalistic meditations, commentaries on the Tikkunei Zohar, chasidic mystical discourses, and so on. I have produced a list of some of those below. Musashiaharon (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone who can read Hebrew capable of providing a quote from a source that actually stands up the key claims, such as "Most Sephardim recite Patach Eliyahu every morning as part of the order for the morning blessings before Shacharit." I would note that this prayer is not part of Template:Jewish prayers, and is not mentioned at Shacharit, Jewish prayer or List of Jewish prayers and blessings, so this prayer is consistently omitted from most key pages about Jewish prayer. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some proof of its use.

It's present in the online siddur for Edot HaMizrach hosted on Sefaria, in Weekday Shacharit.
"I also found this prayer in the Siddur Nahar Shalom by Rabbi Shalom Sharabi (...p. 235), and there he placed the Patach Eliyahu at the beginning of the [prayer] order of the day, and after the L'sheim Yichud of accepting the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven etc., and finishes Patach Eliyahu before laying the tefillin[....] Likewise Rabbi Yaakov Emden in his Siddur Kol Yaakov wrote (ch. Noveh Tzadikim): 'Prayer: Before prayer, recite Tikkunei HaZohar [Patach Eliyahu], which is a segula for the acceptance of the prayer.' See there. Also, in the Siddur Chesed L'Avraham (p. 108b) it instructs that 'it is proper to habitually to recite it, on weekdays and Shabbats.' So too have I found it in the Siddur of the Ari[zal] [as compiled] by R. Asher bar Shlomo Zalman Margoliot (p. 236a). It is likewise in the prayerbook for the congregations of Constantine and Italy (Machzor for Rosh Hashanah 5699 p. 27), and there it places Patach Eliyahu each and every service, this being in order to support and aid the opening of the heart in the awe of Hashem the Pure One; and one says before this the verse 'Viy'hi noam,' etc. See there. Also at the beginning of the siddur by the author of the Tanya, one will find that he corrected and explained the siddur according to his [legal and kabbalistic] opinion, writing that it should customarily be before the afternoon prayer of Shabbat eve. See there. Also, the great R. Chaim Yosef David Azulai wrote in Moreh B'Etzba (sect. 10 end of ch. 332) in his brilliant prose: 'Upon entering the synagogue, does one not immediately pronounce Petichat Eliyahu HaNavi from the holy Tikkunei HaZohar? Our holy rabbanan received a tradition regarding it, that it is auspicious for the acceptance of prayer.' Similar to this have I found in the Aruch HaShulchan (Orach Chayim, sec. 267): 'There are those who recite, prior to the mincha prayer of Shabbat eve, the Psalm of the Four Who Must Give Thanks [Psalms 107], and Patach Eliyahu from the Tikkunim [...]" ~ Merkavot Argaman vol. 2 p.26

Musashiaharon (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This CAN NOT BE DELETED. It is a major work and prayer. It has a Hebrew Wikipedia[31] and many books on it like [32] and [33] How can you even think of deleting something so big?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by יהואש (talk • contribs) 14:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

because we have no links to prove it's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some sources to the article. There are many more sources that discuss the Patach Eliyahu that could be added as well, although most are, understandably, in Hebrew. Musashiaharon (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[34] is an entire book interpreting it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by יהואש (talk • contribs) 14:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind doing some rough translating of the titles and publication info on the notable Hebrew language works on this? Andre🚐 21:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some sources:

Cordovero, Moses. Pardes Rimonim [Orchard of Pomegranates] (in Hebrew). Gate 4:5,6. Pardes Rimonim is a classic Kabbalistic work written in the 1500s.
Touger, Eliyahu; Wineberg, Sholom Ber (eds.). "You are one, byond all reckoning.... No thought can grasp You at all". The Siddur Illuminated by Chasidus. Brooklyn, New York: Merkos L'inyonei Chinuch. pp. 7–9. ISBN 978-0-8266-0631-0.
Weinfeld, Shmuel Yehuda HaLevi (ed.). "Patach Eliyahu V'amar". Sidur T'filot Liymei HaShanah im pirush Shay Lamora [Liturgy of Prayers for Days of the Year with the commentary of Shay Lamora] (in Hebrew). Vol. 2: LaShabatot V'LaChagim [For Sabbaths and Holidays]. Jerusalem: Shay Lamora. pp. 37–50.
Schneerson, Menachem Mendel. "19 Kislev 5715: Patach Eliyahu". Toras Menachem: Sefer HaMa'amorim Melukot Al Seder Chodshei Hashana [Teachings of the Comforter: Selected Mystical Discourses Ordered by the Months of the Year] (in Hebrew). Vol. 2: Kislev-Shvat. Brooklyn, New York: Lahak Hanochos Inc. pp. 99–106. ISBN 978-1-56211-602-6.
Baruchovich, Shneur Zalman. "Parshat Vayera: Patach Eliyahu [Parshah of Vayera: Patach Eliyahu]". Sefer Torah Or [Torah is Light] (in Hebrew). Brooklyn, New York: Kehot Publication Society. pp. 26-30 (13b-15b). ISBN 978-0-8266-5550-9.
Baruchovich, Shneur Zalman. "Seder Minchas Erev Shabbos: Lehavin ma'amor hoyedu'a ant hu chod [Order of the Afternoon Prayer of Shabbos Eve: To understand the famous discourse "You are one..."]". Seder Tefilos Mikol Hashana [Order of Prayers from the Entire Year] (in Hebrew). Brooklyn, New York: Kehot Publication Society. pp. 321-332 (161a-166b). ISBN 978-0-8266-5574-5.
Eliyahu, Meir. Sheelot UTeshuvot Merkavot Argaman [Legal Responsa of "Chariots of Purple"], vol. 2 (in Hebrew) (2 ed.). Jerusalem. p. 25-29.
Chaim, Yosef. Ben Ish Chai [Son of the Living Man] (in Hebrew). Halachot 1st Year, Behar-Bechukotai, Introduction; Nitzavim, Chapter 7 (in Hebrew); Vayeilech, Chapter 27 (in Hebrew); Halachot 2nd Year, Vayetzei, Chapter 26 (in Hebrew). This mystical work of Jewish law and lore was written for the layman around the turn of the 20th century. It is held authoritative by Sephardi Jews, and there have been many publishers.

There are many more. Musashiaharon (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Musashiaharon, you may want to make an explicit keep !vote for the record to make it clear to the closer.--Jahaza (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Musashiaharon (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear to me how many of these are reliable, secondary sources - it seems like a lot are either primary religious texts or secondary religious exegesis that would still fall short of true secondary analysis from the point of view of writing encyclopedic statements about the prayer. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If on a scientific topic we were to disregard scientific sources, all we'd be left with is less-reliable, outsider sources. Same with mathematics, same with sociology. It's ridiculous, on a religious topic, to disregard religious sources. It's a double standard that would lead to reducing the quality of Wikipedia. And if all you need is evidence of usage in prayer, or similar, not all the sources need to be in-depth analyses, although the numerous maamorim provide that in spades. Musashiaharon (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of scholars of a religion that write about religions independently of the subjective views of its practitioners, and if a subject is of serious merit, it has usually been picked up by a few of these. There are many prayers; only a few merit encyclopedia entries. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard, only non-Americans would have permission to comment on American history and customs. Only non-scientists could be cited on scientific topics. What utter stupidity. Besides, all writers are subjective, and outsiders most of all, having the least immersion and the most narrow lens into the field. The most accurate and important opinion for understanding a primary source is that of peers immersed within the same field. That is why papers go through peer review. We do not require rabbis to write an article on Islam, or atheists to write an article on the eucharist. Their particular brand of subjectivity and lack of background on the subject are reasons to doubt and reject them on those topics, rather than require them. For a prayer to be noteworthy, we must simply establish that laypeople or dabblers are curious about it, and that multiple scholarly sources exist discussing it as a well-known topic of importance. The existence of online articles and audio classes about the prayer targeted to non-clergy and an English-speaking audience is an indication that it is noteworthy. And I have shown that a plethora of independent scholarly sources from different countries and centuries from the original source exist discussing it. That should be sufficient. Musashiaharon (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I merely mentioned, as an observation, that most serious religious subjects would at least have been mentioned by scholars of religion, not that those were the only sources that could be used in such an article. My original question was simply about the nature of the selection of the sources, as they are all in Hebrew, and none are obviously academic. If you are offensive again, I will report you. Read WP:NPA and remain civil. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is, in fact, an English source on the list above. Here's two more sources in English, after my signature. Jahaza (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steinsaltz, Adin (2006). Thirteen Petalled Rose. Basic Books. pp. 159–200. ISBN 0465082726. Retrieved 31 August 2022.
Wind, Solomon (1957). The Mystic Approach to Prayer: The Doctrine of the Ten Sephiroth in the Kabalistic Prayer "Patach Eliyahu". New York: Department for Torah Education and Culture, The Jewish Agency.

@Jahaza: I think the Jewish Agency is just about as systemically biased a publisher as one can imagine short of tipping over into full unreliability - religious publishers are not exactly the way one would ideally go here, but the Steinsaltz works looks good in principle. Do you actually have access? How is the coverage of the subject? You've cited pages 159-200 - is that a dedicated chapter? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand accusing them of bias in the field of politics, which you tend to write about, based on your user page. But this is about a passage used in prayerbooks, written by their Department for Torah Education. What's there to be contentious about? Musashiaharon (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a dedicated chapter on Patach Eliyahu:

Patach Eliyahu—Elijah Began

The Tikkunei Zohar opens with two introductions. The second of these describes a convocation of sages (both living and dead), of whom one, Elijah the Prophet, is invited to deliver the opening address.

His statement, a brief description of the basic principles of kabbalah, has become a classic text, recited by many as part of the daily or weekly prayer services[....]

The Text [...]

Commentary [...]

Based on my Hebrew sources and other summaries of Kabbalah like Aryeh Kaplan, his explanation is accurate and consistent with normative Kabbalah. Musashiaharon (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not apply such adjectives to people. I criticize ideas. Especially ones which insultingly claim there is no scholarship worth citing among rabbis on Jewish topics. Or, ideas that religious topics within Judaism are only significant if academia, with their tiny Judaic studies departments, have decided take the time write about them, instead of their distractions with non-theological topics. Despite vast libraries with thousands of books on Jewish law and theology, I never saw any course in my time at the University of California devoted to their study. To this day, there is no such course in their catalog. In my father's time, there was a course on Chovot HaLevavot at Harvard, but no more. Nowadays for textual studies, Harvard has barely one class on Mishneh Torah, and one overview course that crams together the Siddur, Talmud, Rashi and the Haggadah. In contrast, a standard yeshiva presumes that its applicants have been learning these since middle school, and focuses on their commentaries and on other works from classical periods to the modern day. The scholarship in yeshivas is so much greater in depth and breadth, that comparing their prodigious output to that of a university Judaic studies program is a joke. For example, in my personal library I have Lehavin Lehispalel which goes to four volumes and more than 2000 pages discussing for the layman the chasidic interpretation of [some of] the weekday morning prayers alone. On the Haggadah, often printed without commentary in a slender pamphlet, the Lubavitcher Rebbe's commentary spans two hefty volumes totaling 1080 pages, covering laws, touching on history, comparing with other rites, and discussing the mystical and practical meanings. For the blessings on food, commonly printed in under 10 pages, as a small section of the prayerbook, I have Biur Seder Bircas Hanehenin in two volumes spanning over 500 pages discussing the procedural laws of the blessings and noting slight differences in rite. University Judaic studies departments don't produce that kind of comprehensive work. The yeshiva is in a completely different class. That is why I reacted as I did, when you proposed to invalidate all rabbinic sources. Musashiaharon (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think your meaning was clear. As is your ironic implication that I am the one being insulting above. You're treading a thin line. But more importantly, most of the above is irrelevant. I don't care how limited the scholarship in California and Harvard is. I also didn't suggest, at any point, that rabbis were not qualified to write on this subject - I just enquired about the state of the sources above, and whether they could be considered true secondary, non-exegetical, non-confessional sources. However, I do find it surprising, if this prayer is as significant as claimed, that not a single paper has ever been submitted in the history of scholarship discussing either the prayer, its literary origins or earliest extant texts, its diction/linguistic composition or any of the other numerous forms of secondary analysis typically performed on religious literature. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked Steinsaltz and of course all of my own sources, and all are commenting about Patach Eliyahu, mentioning it by title or citing its content before describing it, qualifying them as secondary sources. The portions cited are not inventing new interpretations, but rather summarizing intervening works by other scholars, which gives context on the topic. Even in the places that the Hebrew works do present new ideas, they spring so naturally from their well-sourced references and (most importantly) became so authoritative and normative by adoption by later rabbis that they would also be reliable sources for inclusion in Wikipedia. (I just have not cited them yet because they are too technical for the scope of the article we have right now; how Patach Eliyahu gets used doesn't require that level of innovation.) With their abundance of sources, these Hebrew works function as bibliographies in their own right, and I frequently begin my research by remembering a reference in them, looking that up, and seeing what primary and secondary sources they cite.

I think academia writes so little about Patach Eliyahu because they mostly concern themselves with broad strokes of history and therefore hyperfocus on the traditional two main parts of the service: the amidah and the shema. Those have the longest history of inclusion in prayer, and are the easiest to write about. Aside from that, literature junkies get attracted to the poetry of the High Holiday piyyutim. That accounts for the bulk of the academic papers I've read on Jewish liturgy, ignoring the ones concerning feminism, relations with non-Jews, forced comparisons with modern sociopolitical philosophy and with other religions, and edits to the siddur by liberal Jewish movements. The perspective of academicians is largely warped to focus on how Judaism relates to them and their values, and by lack of fluency in the source languages.

The result is predictable. Judaism qua Judaism, and even kabbalah in its original Jewish context eschewing references to other religions and philosophies, using the texts themselves, is rarely examined at all, let alone in-depth. So, topics of great importance to practicing Jews, like the kosher requirement of bishul yisrael or the central practical missive of birur nitzutzot in kabbalah and chassidus, are given only brief mention in academic literature if at all. There are only a handful of academic researchers in the world with the background and chops to do topics like Patach Eliyahu, and they are far from having produced enough content to guarantee success when doing an Ebsco search. The vast majority review mostly English sources, which themselves do not deal with the original texts except through other English sources from 50 years ago. That's roughly when academic interest in kabbalah began: after Gershom Scholem and Martin Buber introduced it to the English-speaking world. Jews were no longer pariahs like before WWII and its horrors, and interest in mysticism was spiking in the hippie generation. But since then, with social issues and politics cannibalizing other pursuits in Jewish studies, original research on basic topics in Judaism and Kabbalah seems to have stagnated.

In contrast, rabbinic works on tefilah and kabbalah have been expanding in periodic leaps for centuries. The past 70 years have been especially notable, since the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe began sending out shluchim and reviving the Hebrew printing industry in the late 1940s, which his successor explosively expanded since 1951.

Musashiaharon (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing an assessment of the sources listed earlier above - that was all that was ever asked for, before the reactionary meta commentary started. It sounds like we have what we need: something that could not be readily said at the start of this process, though it would be good if anyone else with access to any of these sources could confirm. AGF y'all. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources cited by Musashiaharon, plus Sholom D. Schneerson, Hagahot Ledibur Hamaschil Patach Eliyahu - 5658, Kehot Publication Society: 1981[35].--Jahaza (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Musashiaharon and Jahaza. Andre🚐 17:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as expanded, the article provides the reliable and verifiable sources necessary to demonstrate that the notability standard has been met. Alansohn (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Iraq at the 1948 Summer Olympics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Labib Hasso[edit]

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

Barebones stub which merely recites that Hasso was an Iraqi sprinter who competed in the 1948 Olympics. Hasso was not remotely competitive in his event, finishing with the slowest time among all competitors in the 400 metres (more than 8 seconds slower than the winning times) and failing to qualify for the quarterfinals let alone the semifinals or finals. Fails all applicable criteria: WP:SPORTBASIC (mandating at least one source with WP:SIGCOV, excluding database sources), WP:GNG (lack of SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources), and WP:NOLYMPICS (not a medalist). Cbl62 (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iraq at the 1948 Summer Olympics. There is a full length newspaper article dedicated to his historical and medical career here and it is also mentioned that he was a member of the Royal College of Surgeons here. This is probably not enough to for a "keep", but it does demonstrate that significant coverage exists, even if it is beyond the access of most Wikipedians. Thus, a redirect is appropriate until such coverage can be found. The wording of this nomination also highlights the WP:BIAS problem that I mentioned when objecting to changing the WP:OLYMPICS criteria. The policy based reasons - no demonstrated coverage - are fair, but being "not remotely competitive in his event" is irrelevant to whether or not he should have an article. After World War I, entrants were not just picked at a whim; they had notable careers in their own countries even if those careers could not match up to the world's best. The coverage of those careers, not the results of one tournament, is what matters based on Wikipedia's policy after the change. Unfortunately, coverage from Europe and North America is more easily available to Wikipedians, hence the bias. Canadian Paul 01:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadian Paul: Not able to read Farsi. Is the Facebook clipping of an article about Hasso? If yes, you've got some seriously impressive search skills. Cbl62 (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's Arabic and it is about Hasso. The title of the clipping is (roughly) "Dr. Potions (I'm not sure about this - might be an idiom I am unfamiliar with) Labib Hasso: Between the Scalpel Today and Sport in Days Past." I just got lucky on this one that someone uploaded a picture of the clip - I only have access to Egyptian newspapers normally. Canadian Paul 01:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say the article provides significant coverage of the subject? If so, this could lead to a pass of WP:SPORTBASIC: "sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject." - Enos733 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect so, but because the picture is of low quality, I technically cannot confirm it because I cannot physically read the entire text (hence redirect rather than keep). But assuming the content aligns with the title and the abstract, which it appears to from what I can read, then yes. Canadian Paul 02:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. That the article has been kept at an earlier AfD is immaterial: as some remarked, consensus may change. The editors !voting "delete" present strong, policy-based arguments, but the same cannot be said for the "keep" !votes. Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika Muthukumar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG ( All sources only One TV Serial Sasural Simar Ka 2) PravinGanechari (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PravinGanechari (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No evidence that anything has changed wrt notability since the discussion last year. pburka (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page contains sources of only one TV serial, Does notability pass on the basis of just one TV serial's source? ( One of the three supports in First Afd is a member of the page Created's group. IP - 117.193.137.253 ) PravinGanechari (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While you may disagree with the consensus reached one year ago you haven't provided any evidence that the discussion was closed incorrectly or that the community's standards have shifted. I feel it's improper to renominate pages until one's desired outcome is achieved. pburka (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources attached to it does not even mention the person's name [36] PravinGanechari (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has anything changed since the last discussion, or do you simply disagree with the consensus that was reached? pburka (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question to agree or disagree sir that page contains only one TV serial source. So I have brought it to Afd. You can also close off Non Admin Afd. Sorry PravinGanechari (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per pburka--45.115.91.122 (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete according to my WP:BEFORE, the actress has only two lead roles (in "Kya Haal, Mr. Paanchal?", and "Sasural Simar Ka 2"). Rest of the appearances, including the movie, are not lead/significant. This makes her fail WP:NACTOR. As the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, she fails general notability guidelines as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Congrats! this is the first AfD in a new delsort! –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom and consensus can change. [[Fails NACTOR. Just not enough significant coverage in reliable sources that does not satisfy more than a fan base. Other than the scant credits, that mainly includes a Cameo, Guest appearance, one film, and a newer (2021) recurring role, it seems too soon for more than a job listing and an article just shy of a dictionary entry, which is a pseudo biography. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Nothing has changed since the last nomination. Muthukumar played the lead in the marathi film Rangeela Rayaab and in the two Hindi series Kya Haal, Mr. Paanchal?, Sasural Simar Ka 2 which makes her pass NACTOR. However a cleanup is required regarding WP:GNG which will be done now.117.209.207.169 (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This IP has no edits outside this AfD/AfD's subject. Also, they signed their first ever comment/first edit. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to this TOI page, the film is titles "Rangeela Rayabaa" (which makes sense in Marathi, "Rayaab" doesnt). Muthukumar does not have a significant role in that film. The NACTOR guideline says the [actor should have] significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows [...]. Rangeela Rayabaa is not a notable film. Regarding "Nothing has changed since the last nomination", consensus can change, but ironically, the work of the actress did not increase. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Muthukumar was the lead in the film Rangeela Rayabaa which makes her role in that film significant. Rangeela Rayabaa is a notable film in Marathi so it does count into WP:NACTOR. Besides that Muthukumar was also the lead in Kya Haal, Mr. Paanchal? and Sasural Simar Ka 2. Therefore 3 lead roles itself makes 3 significant roles which makes Muthukumar pass WP:NACTOR.
117.230.6.7 (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: There seems to be some confusion with the !vote above. "Cleanup" does not have anything to do with notability: On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. All such notability standards (WP:NBASIC and the additional criteria) are not just a listing of accomplishments but providing proof (including inline citations when contested) for a "written account of that person's life", or that the subject deserves an article. This, along with What Wikipedia is not is suppose to be a catch to prevent dictionary entries, pseudo biographies, and resumes. Now that Wikipedia is established, the criteria for including subjects is usually (and should be) held to a higher standard than; "Well they were in a couple of movies so they must be notable". -- Otr500 (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small-time bit part actor and barely worked. Fail WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 13:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - She has 3 lead/significant roles played in two notable Hindi series Kya Haal, Mr. Paanchal?, Sasural Simar Ka 2 and one notable Marathi film Rangeela Rayabaa. So doesn't that make her pass WP:NACTOR?
117.230.6.7 (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mickeydkop. PravinGanechari (talk) 8:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment - My name is Alicia David. I'm a student of JNU Delhi and I am not a sockpuppet of User:Mickeydkop. It's just that my mobile data ip keeps varying everytime I make an edit. I really don't know Mickey nor have any relations with them.117.230.38.185 (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Athletics at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Women's 400 metres#Quarterfinals. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jayamini Illeperuma[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Sri Lanka. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Sportsfan 1234, what do you think of a redirect to Athletics at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Women's 400 metres#Quarterfinals? More generally, I noticed a lot of these were getting soft deleted due to low participation anyway, so where appropriate (e.g. if a redirect destination exists) it might be easier going through a lighter process. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a good idea. Perhaps we need a consensus on doing this so AFD can be avoided. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it's a reliable source, but a quick google search turns up this as the third item in the search results. Cbl62 (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above - on a general basis, the majority of articles such as this can be redirected and we should be looking at establishing this as a standard outcome for those where there isn't much of a hint at wider notability. In this case, neither source cited in the article gives me that hint and the one found by Cbl62 seems to simply be a run through of her results which looks like it was taken from a set of databases - it would make a poor wikipedia article perhaps. If there was anything else very much in that source - a bit of an interview, what she's doing now, the business she's running etc... - I might consider it helpful, but beyond a fragment on her school and early coaching there's not really anything there. I suppose it might indicate that there's something in older Sri Lankan media sources on here - I presume the writer trawled through newspaper archives to create it - but it's marginal at best. I'll add it to the article so that we have it as a seed if it's required. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Júbilo Iwata season[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDATABASE and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. After seeing some of the reports that you made recently, mainly for seasons of japanese football teams, it's totally understandable that most of this pages were uncompleted and, most of them, even abandoned for a long time. Aparently there's some random guy who wanted to work on it but got tired and drop all those pages. So I understand if you want to clean Wikipedia from thos pages.

As for the case of the Júbilo Iwata page, I decided to complete the page since it was one of the teams who took part in the infamous Real Madrid Asian Tour in that year. My intention is to complete the J.League section and finish the job, but I want to know what criteria or requirements are needed in order to save this specific page from the deletion proposal. In case that the mentioned section isn't enough, I'll stop working after knowing it could be unneccessary.

Greetings. Pablito064 (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSEASONS, this is a team that competes in the top league in Japan, and it is extremely unlikely that no coverage exists (hard to find because Japanese online news in 2005 didn't really exist & the newspaper archives are not available to me, but to provide some starting points, J-League claims the Oct 1 2005 match was one of the best games in the history of the J-League). Nom has also provided why no explanation why they did not nominate the other season articles (ex. 2004 and 2006) given they have a similar article quality. Jumpytoo Talk 04:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Jumpytoo. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic and mostly unreferenced, fails WP:NOTDATABASE and GNG. Avilich (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The page is now completed. Please let me know if more parameters are required in order to save it, since my first call was unsuccessful. Pablito064 (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's completed alright, with one source, two pages, that is just providing stats, and zero meaningful prose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources to establish notability. I understand it may be difficult to find Japanese sources, but these are needed in order to improve the article. If we can’t find the sources, there’s very little to work with. Fats40boy11 (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:NOTDATABASE, which is a Wikipedia policy Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2030 United States census[edit]

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

It is too early to have an article about the next U.S. census with adequate sources beyond the three already in the article. We are not even half-way through the 2020s decade yet. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and United States of America. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Due to an error I have corrected in Special:Diff/1107260123, Twinkle did not actually list the nomination at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science. The nomination has now been listed there. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL, and only restore by the time it is about to be conducted. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Organization of this census is already underway since 2018; today I expanded the article and added further, specific references. --Fadesga (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CRYSTAL is clear that "individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." There is no doubt that the 2030 Census is notable and that it will very likely take place as it is required by the U.S. Constitution. The 2030 Census has already received WP:SIGCOV as demonstrated by sources added into the article by User:Fadesga. Carson Wentz (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:CRYSTAL it is almost certain to take place, and if it was cancelled then that would generate enough content and sources for notability still. Also as a large event in active planing this is not a trivial future event. KylieTastic (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eli Avidar with the option to merge viable content. There is some support for creating an article about minor Israeli parties, to which this could be merged, but the option wasn't discussed enough to reach consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Hofsheet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Israel Hofsheet

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

Article doesn't have standalone notability, it exists because of its connection to Eli Avidar, which seems to go against WP:ORG. There also seems to be a reasonable consensus on the Talk Page that this discussion should take place Totalstgamer (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to delete it or redirect it to Eli Avidar, which I did first. This is a one man party, newly formed, that probably won't pass the electoral threshold and might not even run in the election. There is no Hebrew Wikipedia page. There is an NGO, with the same name, that existed from 2009 that has a Hebrew Wikipedia page ישראל חופשית, which is not related is that is complaining against the part for using its name. The problem with redirecting to Avidar is that the NGO is more significant than this temporary one man party. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a political party with ample sources. It is used in the opinion polls summary. Sure, organizations tend to have a leader and a party that participates in national elections must have someone placed at #1, but that does not mean that it equals the leader. gidonb (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)'[reply]

The issue is not that there's a primary politician who's the most important, it's that this party has no other notable members or aspects for its existence excluding a minor naming dispute. There's other examples of recent, one-man parties that got deleted, such as the New Economic Party, The Israelis (political party), and Tnufa. Parties like Gesher (2019 political party) are allowed, but that's because they won seats in an election and participated in a government, thus having notability beyond just being founded by orly levy. It might warrant an article later but it's too early in my opinion. Totalstgamer (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeating the same, very wrong and misleading frame here: thus having notability beyond just being founded by orly levy. These aren't the options. Anyone will be able to look through that misleading frame. Regarding your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I have undone the redirecting of the New Economic Party without any discussion. The Israelis (political party) and Tnufa do not need an article as the party never ran, it's a bad comparison. Gesher (2019 political party) does have an article, as do MANY other small parties. gidonb (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Israelis and Tnufa have no notability, but they're mentioned in reliable sources from the time, Although that coverage wasn't sustained (in a similar way to how This party has yet to accure sustained coverage). The redirection of the New Economic Party should be redone, we'll have that dispute later. The point wasn't that other stuff exists, but rather that there's other examples where this exact logic has been applied. Free Israel has no notable elements, as of now, besides being founded by Eli Avidar. It hasn't won seats in an election, neither has it even announced that it would run yet. It hasn't had a sustained existence, it hasnt won a substantial extraparliamentary share of the vote, so on so fouth. The reference i made to ORG was for the section "no inherited notability". "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it... The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable.". As of now, the organization is mentioned in reliable sources, but almost exclusively within the context of either Eli Avidar or a naming dispute the party had with another organization. Totalstgamer (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try this one more time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is the obvious choice, לילך5 made the right call. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All those issues are notable events. Even if it will be short lived it is notable. It could be renamed Israel Hofsheet (Political Party).--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't notability but rather standalone notability. The party as of now is not notable on its own, but as a part of Eli Avidar's political career. The delete argument is that this content should be merged into that page.Totalstgamer (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I think it would be fine either way in that case, it's ok to have that information merged to a new section in Ali Avidar or keep it as a separate article. However I think it will be more organized as a separate article because the the "main" page is a biography, which would then be added into lists and categories of political parties. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect after merge to Eli Avidar. It is WP:TOOSOON for this to warrant a standalone article. No representation, no WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and only formed this year. It may be notable in the future, but this isn't a WP:CRYSTALBALL. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There was a mention above about an NGO with the same name on the Hebrew wiki as a reason to do a simple redirect, but that isn't an issue here unless they have an article on this wiki. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Bruxton (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless this new party drops from the ballot, by 15 Sept. at the latest. The party is polling above Ale Yarok. Now I agree that there are so many minor parties in Israel, for which there are so few things to say, that some cleaning up may be necessary. I suggest that "exclusionists" and "inclusionists" start a summary article, that we could call Israeli minor parties, and which would summarize all the info about the dozens of parties there are, but are worthy of a redirect only. The article could be easily be split along the "sectors" of Israeli society, if too long. Kahlores (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support proposal to create a catch-all article for minor Israeli parties. Andre🚐 17:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a good idea, itd reduce the clutter for stub articles about one-off or perennial parties while still allowing us to discuss their more notable aspects Totalstgamer (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eli Avidar. Also note, I'm expanding the section on his political career significantly and will have a subsection on Israel Hofsheet, which would serve as a good place for this article. If anything more notable happens, then we can go back and break it off into its own page. Gilded Snail (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Himachal State Museum[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG, article only has one source and that's the official museum website. Would have sent this to draft but can't due to a rule on sending articles to draft if they are more than 90 days old. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and India. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Himachal Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are book references, although most are for the house, Inverarm. The coverage of the house plus the importance of a state museum (and it does seem to have a good collection) puts it over the top for me, and I have expanded the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding all those sources! Do any of those books have an ISBN number or something like that? Just want to make sure everything can be found. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and I also went ahead and added Google Books URLs for almost all, for convenience; those can be stripped out if the article is kept, since I know some people hate them, especially since it's a crapshoot whether all of them will work for someone in a different location. At least one of the old books is also online elsewhere. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great work everyone! Thank you so much for adding those references and finding all the ISBN numbers. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as hoax. Hog Farm _Talk 04:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Malaueg[edit]

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

Potential hoax.

I've performed Google, Google Books, Google News and Scholar searches and found no substantial results.

What I did find is that there is a town and a community called Malaueg. Both topics might be covered by their own articles.

Google maps coordinate, which is named "Mount Malaueg, Rizal, Cagayan", points to a river bed and has the Church of Malaueg as its picture.

Now for the terrain. The article claims that it is a 1092 meter mountain with the lowest elevation at 530 meters. Thing is, the area where the coordinates are pointing to is in a river bed and the general topography of the immediate area barely rise above 100 meters. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = I think the nom is right about it being a hoax, but in any case there is no significant coverage. Indeed, other than pages that seem to source Wikipedia in one way or another, I cannot find any mention at all. Nothing in books, newspapers or other papers. Regardless of whether it is a hoax, it fails on significant coverage. The "was" in the page suggests the mountain has gone. The only way that could happen is with an extremely significant volcanic eruption which would surely have got quite a lot of coverage! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a WP:HOAX and send it to WP:HOAXLIST. This article has been on Wikipedia for 10 years, 1 month, and 30 days. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. I don't find even a single notable source or reference. It looks like a WP:HOAX, so it should be deleted. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 19:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax and send it to WP:HOAXLIST. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:G3/WP:HOAX. SBKSPP (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G3 as clearly WP:HOAX. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (WP:G3): Obvious WP:HOAX. Add it to WP:HOAXLIST. Chompy Ace 00:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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